The history shows Giovanni33 has been quite involved in this. John Smith's has many edits to the talk page recently, but few to the article page. I myself gave both users a final warning on 01 Feb. I find Giovanni33 did revert twice and has edit warred on this article and John Smith's has not. Therefore I am blocking Giovanni33 72 hours. I highly encourage both editors to learn to settle their differences.
Giovanni33 has been
placed on revert parole (1 a week, per article).
Giovanni has been edit-warring at the State terrorism and the United States article again.
Revert number 1:
Revert number 2:
The article is controversial enough as it is, but Giovanni persists in reverting. In the past I have asked him to not revert and seek consensus for his edits given the controversial nature of the page. Indeed I have not reported him on occasion. But he doesn't seem to be listening.
I am informing him of the report, so he will have the opportunity to self-revert. Even though other editors have fought over the text he restored in his last reversion, it is still there so he can remove it. If he removes it, it may also help stop the edit-warring as editors that share his position may not then put the text back. If he does self-revert a block won't be necessary. But he has been warned and blocked in the past - I'm not sure what can change his behaviour. An admin taking charge over the long-term might help. John Smith's ( talk) 10:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I've full protected the article as there seems to be an edit war going on. I'll wait til Giovanni responds here before proceeding further. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There have been several similar incidents earlier where Giovanni33 has reverted and then when reported here claims innocence, mistakes and being persecuted. [1] [2] [3] Ultramarine ( talk) 19:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Meowy ( talk · contribs) has been placed on revert parole and other restrictions in accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ruling: [4] which limited him to 1 rv per week. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
However on 2008 Mardakert skirmishes Meowy made an rv [5] of a very dubious merit (removing the word “unrecognized” which was clearly in relation to the self-proclaimed republic and not the flag, so the pretext is baseless and the rv was disruptive) and failed to discuss it on the talk of the relevant article, which he is required to do in accordance to his parole. Previously the same edit was made by banned User:Azad chai ( 149.68.31.146 ( talk · contribs) and other edit warring anons on the same page are Azad chai or his friends). This is not the first violation of parole by Meowy, he was warned and blocked for violations before. [6] Grandmaster ( talk) 07:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
}
I have been referred here from ANI. (Background at ANI two days ago.) Unfortunately, Tango's warning to MONGO has been rejected and ignored. MONGO obviously thinks he's in the right here. We may as well get ArbCom's rememedy tested sooner, rather than waiting til later.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 09:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I have blocked MONGO for one week for incivility. He has a history of bad attitude and shows no signs of learning. Telling an admin to "get lost" when they issue an official warning is not acceptable behaviour. I have requested a review of this block on WP:AN/I. -- Tango ( talk) 13:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Strongly recommend Tango recuse himself from further blocking on Mongo and refer future problems to a single noticeboard for uninvolved review. Durova Charge! 16:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Mongo's efforts in maintaining the standards of the Wikipedia with all things 9/11-related over the years are nothing short of heroic. Getting 9/11 conspiracy theories into the Wikipedia as a means of validating them is on-going and unrelenting. Of course, each external link monetizes a conspiracy theory edit. As an editor of some of those articles I realized that only a admin would be able to stop the articles from being taken over by people with the conspiracy agenda (i.e. "we took down the towers" or "we let them take down the towers") or the moral-equivalence agenda "we deserved 9/11."
The block on Mongo really chills any attempt on the part of editors or admins to engage the agenda warriors so that 9/11 as a conspiracy is prevented from being presented as the primary credible reason for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The other observation that anyone reading about this can make is that persistence pays. If you push and push long enough, the will be some technical issue, Wiki-law, or admin exhaustion that will let you acquire control of an article or a set of articles.
Too many admins were in an ivory tower when Mongo was down in the mud protecting the 9/11 articles from being echoes of conspiracy theory sites. And if anyone wants to repetitively edit that 9/11 was a conspiracy, the "Save Page" is always there for them. I fear the floodgates will open.
I suspect without new and on-going vigilance on the part of other admins, critics of the Wikipedia will find that 9/11 articles will be their one stop shop to see where truly anyone can edit anything. patsw ( talk) 17:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I've unblocked MONGO after consulting the most recent blocking admin. [8] I also tried talking to Tango, [9] but he's gone offline, and I feel that a 16-block is more than long enough. There was substantial concern about the block among editors I respect, expressed on AN/I and the RfAr, including DHeyward, Jehochman, Kelly, Guy, Giano, Bishzilla, Orderinchaos, Raymond Aritt, Durova, Eusebeus, Alex Bakharev, Newyorkbrad, and others. The consequence of the block seems to be that MONGO has left the project, a decision I hope he'll reconsider. SlimVirgin talk| edits 06:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
IP has been argumentative and incivil on the September 11, 2001 attacks, claiming editors have hijacked the article, claiming editors are oppressing content, massive bad faith assumptions and personal attacks and soapboxing, they'll just ignore you or start whining.
These pages are subject to Arbcom remedies and as we've seen in the Mongo case the threshold is significantly lower as a result. There's no reason regular editors in good standing have to put up with this sort of abuse. These pages have been home to these kinds of attacks and innuendo for a long time and we need to start policing it. With "the big stick" remedy we can go forward and use the remedy provided us. Someone please block for an appropriate period of time. Thanks. RxS ( talk) 17:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Per case Betacommand 2 remedy
12.3.1.A, in a recent bot request for approval, betacommand has told a user to shut up
[10], and generally greeted questions and comments from this user as 'personal attacks'.
MickMacNee (
talk) 15:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
If this was an incorrect filing then I suggest the text in 'how to use this page': (Provide) A brief summary of how this behavior is linked to the principles, findings of fact, remedies, and/or enforcement mechanism of the arbitration case needs to be changed. MickMacNee ( talk) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I should make it clear that I was not offended. While not optimal, I'm scarcely going to be deeply offended by playground incivility. There's also a not-insignificant chance that I was wrong, and betacommand and I are (I think) agreeing to disagree about our different definitions of a bot. AKAF ( talk) 16:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The remedy in question is not enforceable (and "shut up" is not worthy of a civility block on its own) but I strongly request that Betacommand not throw the word "libel" about like so much confetti. Saying that you might have violated Wikipedia policy is not libellous. Don't be a silly sausage. Moreschi2 ( talk) 19:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Just an FYI, one of the socks of either User:Neutral Good/ User:BryanFromPalatine, depending on how you follow the pattern of evidence. In either case, per Checkuser evidence this was all confirmed up as likely the same person and direct geographic location as BFP, and through consensus the lot were asked again to leave for the better of Wikipedia. Specific to both Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding. The sock account seems to be asking for an unblock. Lawrence § t/ e 15:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
User:Asgardian was restricted from edit warring as a determination of a Dec. 3, 2007 Arbitration decision here. The decision reads in part, "He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page."
Despite this he has incurred two blocks, plus an extension and a sockpuppet use, as documented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae#Log of blocks and bans.
Since then, he has gradually made small reverts over time that he has been warned are in contradiction to WikiProject Comics' editorial guidelines.
He has now more formally violated his one-revert-per-week restriction by two reverts in less than six hours, at Infinity Gauntlet, JLA/Avengers section:
As well, he generally does not — and in this April 17 case did not — "discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page". Indeed, he responded to a request to respect editorial guidelines with an attack on the requester, here ("Over-reaction [sic]. Avoid emotive and POV terms such as 'pray'. There are no martyrs here.") This, while refusing, despite two requests over two days, to discuss the content change as required.
I've stayed off Wikipedia for a while largely because of this kind of thing, and Asgardian's reverts began as soon as I returned. Please ... I sincerely request enforcement of the Arb decision.-- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The assumption that there has been a breach is also incorrect, as the opening sentence of the article - the point of contention for the user - was not reverted. In addition to retaining another small grammer change I made another change that the user missed. There was not a blind revert. Tenebrae just needs to pay a tad more attention (another example being the article Masters of Evil, where he blindly reverted much of his own work on the Publication History simply because he didn't like a minor change I made afterwards).
I'm much more of a team player these days, and just proved this by working through another article - Galactus - with another user over a number of sessions. I'm also going to take the issue of what is and isn't fictional to WikiProject Comics for more discussion. Not the acts of someone looking for an edit war.
That said, hopefully cooler heads will prevail.
Asgardian ( talk) 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Asgardian ( talk) 08:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The previous 2 reports were removed from ANI by a bot after 24 hours, without any resolution. I posted this report at ANI because User:Babakexorramdin was not a subject of Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom cases. User:Babakexorramdin attempted to reveal a personal identity and falsely associate me with a different real person. A few days ago, he left an edit comment:
Although he is denying any linkage to a real person in his comment [12], but rather some ancient term, which no longer exists, I have finally contacted the alleged person linked to me, and Babakexorramdin was apparently contacting this person, accusing him of being myself, and harassing him on a regular basis via email. I have an email evidence.
I do believe User:Babakexorramdin was misled by prior SAME allegation of User:Artaxiad - [13], for which he was banned - [14]. User:Kirill Lokshin then deleted all of references to the full name of person (Javid ...) falsely associated by Artaxiad with my account. Now, over a year later, User:Babakexorramdin makes the same claim. The question is how did Babakexorramdin get information to make such claim if Artaxiad is banned and links are removed for a year now.
I am also a subject of harassment - [15] by User:VartanM and by User:Fedayee here - [16]. They previously also harassed another Azerbaijani contributor, User:Ehud Lesar, which resulted in ArbCom case, where their allegations were proven false. VartanM recently made another statement on archived ANI report [17]:
I don't know of any Wikipedia rule, where contributor must provide his identity or any other non-admin contributor (VartanM, participant of 2 ArbComs) is supposed to investigate other people's personal identity and then (falsely so) use it in his incessant edit fights. Atabek ( talk) 14:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
What does this have to do with the essence of report, which is harassment? As I said, there is email evidence of harassment directed against both myself as well as real-life person, whose name was used to falsely associate with me. Atabek ( talk) 21:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
That's a ridiculous claim, and with all assumptions of good faith, I doubt User:CreazySuit could serve as a neutral party in argument vs. User:Babakexorramdin. I am not forum shopping, but only seeking to remove the revision reciting someone's name, for which I will follow advise to request that from oversight. I don't know Babakexorramdin, neither have any grudges against him or had any interaction with him in order to seek his removal. Revealing someone's identity (the intent) by false association, making the person subject to harassment by email or real life is a violation and has nothing to do with intent of Wikipedia in first place. As a matter of fact, I never sought to ever seek the real life identity of VartanM, Fedayee, Artaxiad or other contributors who were engaged in edit conflicts with myself. I don't see a reason why they should be doing so. Atabek ( talk) 05:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
While I am aware that the Arbcom restriction ended on April 11, I (and VartanM as well) did still respect 1RR to not spread another series of revert wars (since it seems both Grandmaster and Atabek thought they were still under restriction). But this has become out of proportion since Grandmaster and Atabek continue to revert without reading. They ignore talkpages and their justifications in them has little to do with their reverts. See Grandmaster’s last justification for example and see what has been reverted. Either Grandmaster did not read the justifications or has completely ignored on purpose what has taken me countless hours to write and explain.
First evidence that Grandmaster did not read what he has reverted is that the version to which Grandmaster has reverted is not the original version as he claims; he reverted to the version which contained Atabek’s changes of yesterday. I already explained the problem with that addition more than once.
Atabek’s added text contains this: the mass of the Oghuz Turkic tribes who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateau, which remained Persian, and established themselves more to the west, in Caucasus and Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name "Turkmen" for a long time: from the 13th century onwards they "Turkised" the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan, thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris.
And this is the text from the note provided: the mass of the Oghuz Turkic tribes who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateau, which remained Persian, and established themselves more to the west, in Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name "Turkmen" for a long time: from the 13th century onwards they "Turkised" the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris.
Note that Atabek copied word for word the author and dishonestly added the word Caucasus and removed the information in the parentheses about the former language of Azerbaijan. Atabek was already warned to not do that, to not take sections of texts from authors and incorporates them in articles as if he wrote them. He has to re-word them or place them in quotes. Besides, it was already explained that what Atabek has added is irrelevant to the article or at least he threw it in an incoherent way in an already incoherent and disorganized version. Also note Grandmaster’s justification, when the version he reverted does not even speak of the Turkmen once. Grandmaster has used a disagreement in the talkpage used as an example to work on an irrelevant argumentation to revert me, when his argument is irrelevant to the content he re-introduced. Grandmaster and Atabek continue thinking that justifying reverts is to add just text in the talkpage regardless of if it is relevent as a justification of the revert itself.
In fact, reading the article you will note that important sections have been removed from it, such as organization and context. Never did Atabek or Grandmaster justify the removal of those additions. Not once… they didn’t even bring it once in the talkpage. Once reverted is an accident, but with the number of reverts without addressing the rest of the text is not an accident. If they both had a problem with the word Turkic, they would have changed the term leaving the re-organization of the text and the new elements added there. But instead the Turkic term was used as a pretext to remove information and re-introduce redundancy and/or irrelevancy. Thanks. - Fedayee ( talk) 21:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Possible violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories, requesting sanctions:
User Osli73
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Osli73 has a history of willfully violating probations including the use of sockpuppets on articles related to the former Yugoslavia.
One can see at the bottom of this arbitration webpage that he has been blocked repeatedly for willfully violating sanctions placed against his edit warring and sockpuppetry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Involved_parties
For example:
Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) 3 months per 1 month tthis AE post. Please note this is Osli's fourth block. --wL<speak·check> 07:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for 2 weeks for breaking the revert limit on Srebrenica massacre; also banned from editing Srebrenica massacre for 3 months. Thatcher131 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for two weeks for directly violating his probation and revert parole at Srebrenica massacre. --Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for one week for directly violating his probation and revert parole by using a sockpuppet to edit war at Srebrenica massacre. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Blocked KarlXII (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Osli73 (talk · contribs) proven by checkuser. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
On March 19, 2008, Osli73 received the following probation from administrator Thatcher explicitly forbidding Osli73 from more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Mujahadin , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen
Despite the explicit probation against more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles, user Osli73 has again engaged in edit warring, reverting the Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen articles repeatedly, for example Osli made the following 8 reverts to the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles from April 8 to April 14:
diffs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205563168
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205562519
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205439461
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205437228
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205144618
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204899529
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204888935
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204184557
From his statements, Osli73 has shown that he fully understands the restrictions placed upon him. From his actions, he has shown that he is not willing to abide by those restrictions.
I am notifying the administrators that have sanctioned Osli73 in the past as well as notifying Osli73 of this posting. Especially with articles involving the former Yugoslavia, it is imperative that users respect the limits placed upon their editing. If the more vitriolic editors involved in former Yugoslavia articles see that Osli73 is not held accountable for his his transgressions, then there is greater likelihood of out-of-control edit warring as there has been in the past. Fairview360 ( talk) 05:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Sockpuppet?
On 18 December 2006, Srikeit ( talk · contribs) blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week because of sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole in Srebrenica massacre.
I think Osli created another account Jonathanmills ( talk · contribs) in order to edit Srebrenica massacre:
If you search through his edits you will realise that both of them edited Konjic article (?!) It is impossible that they are both interested in Konjic village in Herzegovina ?! Osli allegedly from Sweden, and Jonathanmills from England, both interested in a village in a country that most people never heard of ?!
Due to the fact that it has already been proven Osli was a sockpuppeteer in Srebrenica massacre article, this is a good reason to ask for another check user. They even have the same greetings, it is enough to look at the talk pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.39.121 ( talk)
Before Philip Baird Shearer proceeds any further in this discussion, he ought to clarify if he is purporting to be in the role of administrator here or rather simply expressing his opinion as an editor.
Wiki policy is quite clear concerning when an administrator should not use his administrative tools, ie. not act as an administrator.
Philip Baird Shearer is very much an involved editor here. He has not only edited the articles affected by Osli73's behavior, Philip Baird Shearer has engaged in multiple reverts often in concert with Osli73. Of course, Philip Baird Shearer is entirely free to act as an editor and passionately defend his point of view as others do the same. But if he wants to play on one soccer team against another and at the same time keep a whistle in his mouth as a referee of that very same game, there is obviously a confliict of interest.
Other administrators, who have edited Bosnia-related articles -- actually less than Philip Baird Shearer -- have expressly refrained from using any of their administrative tools, refrained from acting as an administrator, and instead, when aware of an issue worthy of administrative review, referred their concerns to other administrators who are not involved editors.
Wiki policy found on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators is as clear as need be: "Administrators should not use their tools where they are a party (or significant editor).
A review of Philip Baird Shearer's edits of the Bosnian Genocide, Srebrenica Massacre, and Bosnian Mujahideen articles will show that he is indeed very much an involved editor. He has contributed content and reverted multiple times. On the Bosnian Genocide article, among scores of reverts in the midst of edit warring, he has specifically reverted back to the last version by Osli73 many times.
And yet, with both the Bosnian Mujahideen and Bosnian Genocide article, he has used his administrative powers to protect the articles and thereby lock in the version that he himself has been creating and defending as an editor.
It is not a question of content. Many of Philip Baird Shearer's contributions are quite thoughtful even when taking a position that is strongly opposed by other editors. However, it does appear that Philip Baird Shearer is in clear violation of wiki policy which prohibits involved editors acting simultaneously as administrators. No matter how intent Philip Baird Shearer may be towards objectivity, his personal involvement with the content and the editors in question disqualify him as a disinterested third party as mediators are meant to be. There is a reason why wiki has the policies it has.
So the question returns to Philip Baird Shearer, is he writing here as an editor or an administrator? Fairview360 ( talk) 23:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Philip is not telling the truth. Philip said:" Block log for Osli73 - Much (all?) of his edit warring has been against edits made by sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy."
According to Grandy's contribution, Grandy created his account on 27 September 2007, and Osli has been blocked before that seven times. According to Philip's contribution, Osli and Philip worked together on Bosnian related articles with almost the same opinion. I think Osli should be blocked at least for two months, and of course banned infinitely if the evidence shows he is a sockpuppeteer. 217.75.202.131 ( talk) 13:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
To whomever is deciding on this matter, I would like to make a couple of statements:
Before making a decision I would like to ask the responsible admin to please consider the above. Best regards Osli73 ( talk) 21:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
My response to User:Fairview360's comments above: Fairview360 refers to "vitriolic" editors on Yugoslavia related articles. As far as I am concerned he belongs to this group himself (although he is by no means the worst). Please see some examples of his comments on Talk:Srebrenica massacre below. Most revolving around accusations of my being a genocide denier, Milosevic supporter, supporter of the Greater Serbia project, etc.. Very much in line with his comments above. Please take the time to read them to better understand the background:
Fairview360 was by far not the most "vitriolic" editor, but, as the above comments he made on Talk:Srebrenica massacre show, he did not shy away from personal attacks and bullying. Regards Osli73 ( talk) 17:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The salient issue here is that every wiki editor is obligated to abide by the restrictions placed upon him. The fact is that Osli73 has repeatedly violated the restrictions placed upon him. The question for administrators is what course of action will lead to Osli73 abiding by the sanctions placed upon him.
Fairview360 (
talk) 21:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
On March 19, 2008, Osli73 received the following probation from administrator Thatcher explicitly forbidding Osli73 from more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Mujahadin , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen
Osli73 violated his probation several times. It is up to the appropriate administrators to decide the response to these violations. Fairview360 ( talk) 02:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
At WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive16#Community ban, Vintagekits is listed as one of two users that are banned per behaviour during the "Troubles" arbitration. However, he claims that he is "only" indefinitely blocked and not permanently banned. It appears that he thinks he is eligible to request that the block is lifted one day, and that in the meantime, the methods described at WP:Banning policy#Evasion and enforcement are inappropriate for him. I note that the decision for his most recent indefinite block (!) is described at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive372#User:Vintagekits, and does not actually formally state that he is under community ban. Conversely, I also note that many user comments on WP:AN and WP:ANI since then (e.g. wrt the edit-warring on his user page) imply that those users think he is indeed banned, so it is clear that there is some confusion here. I seek final clarification of his status, with a "formal" notification to Vintagekits stating what it is. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 17:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Regarding the Thomas Basboll block by Raul654, Raul is:
Can someone lift the "September 11 attacks-related articles" ban on Thomas Basboll? This case cannot be anymore clear cut. Inclusionist ( talk) 01:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Before anyone objects that this will allow anyone to get upset and ask an arbitrator to stop such analysis, I would like to point out that Flonight (also an arbitrator) said this:"Fair enough. I think we've both made our points. The best way to de-escalate things might now be if we all step away. Repeating things won't help at this stage, and from what I can see, your continuing comments are not helping (and mine probably aren't either). If you really want Giano to calm down, please consider reducing or archiving or summarising the material currently on your talk page. To be clear, I'm going to make a conscious effort to step away, and I hope you and Giano do as well."
Do we really want an arbitration case about whether arbitrators can analyse at length outside of arbitration cases? And even if FT2 was wearing his administrator's hat, I think the point still stands - he is trying to exert his authority as an arbitrator and, frankly, is (unintentionally) inflaming the situation. I will repeat here my call for everyone to just step back and calm down. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply"I would like to remind both of you that when you speak of Giano that you are talking about a real person. I feel uncomfortable with the manner that you both are analyzing him. Debating about him outside of our normal dispute resolution process is not helpful to the situation, I think."
Emphasis mine. Risker ( talk) 17:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC) replyInsulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all...The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.
Note: The committee is currently voting on a proposal that would restrict who may enforce the sanctions in this case. Any administrator even considering acting on this should read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions#Request for clarification : Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC before acting to see if their authority to act has been restricted. GRBerry 17:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I think long posts associated with Giano are de riguer these days - that he is currently choosing to be upset by FT2s is neither here nor there. FT2, whatever you think of his analysis, is not under a case remedy mandating civility. Giano is. It is instructive that the views on FT2s posts line up roughly with the sides of the general dispute, so I think criticism of his 'psychoanalysis' as its been called should be taken with a grain of salt. At any rate, the question here is this: Is that edit, and the others pointed out by CBM, uncivil and a violation of the case remedy? Note that the motion to restrict who can act on this remedy has not passed, and last I checked didn't have wide support by the Committee. Avruch T 17:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This primarily a continuation of the past block discussion as has occurred elsewhere, especially on FT2's talk page. We can close it as resolved and move on since questions about the block have been asked and answered. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
User:Eusebeus, who is well aware of the decisions of the recent episodes arbcom case, has begun blindly restoring redirects, without the slightest bit of prior discussion, citing
WP:FICT as his basis for this, despite the fact it is still under discussion--
Jac16888 (
talk) 19:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
As requested. The arbcom case this is related to is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, and User:Eusebeus is the only party involved, since attempts to discuss it with him have resulted in blunt, somewhat rude responses which basically equate to "I'm doing this and you can't stop me"-- Jac16888 ( talk) 14:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It's all about how you approach the situation. I didn't directly revert Eusebeus for the .hack characters, because I also added merge tags and I told him that they should still be merged, but we needed to plan it out (the merge target had basically no content at all, and there were multiple games/shows/etc that might be better organized on more than one list). Part of the problem is that it's easy to see these situations as all-or-nothing, even if there are other options. -- Ned Scott 05:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The Scrubs episode articles have been discussed for consisting of nothing but plot since November 2007, and the only way to rectify this per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT is to expand or merge/redirect. The expand didn't happen (it's not even clear that this is possible at all), so it's the latter now. Eusebeus resumed merge discussions after the arbcom case closed (middle of March) and is only taking actions now. Based on that, it would be hard to interpret his actions as wrong. It's been almost five months after all. – sgeureka t• c 11:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Has anyone notified Eusebeus about this discussion? I don't see anything on this talk page, so I'll leave him a note there as well. -- Ned Scott 19:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Ok, Jac, take note since instead of contrition for your wanton breach of conduct, you offer a passive-aggressive defense of your caricature of my actions. Based on your own feelings, based not on Wikipedia praxis or policy, you are unhappy that I merged Scrubs material which does not satisfy our standards at WP:FICT - which in recent review has reconfirmed with additional forcefulness our injunction against standalone articles as vehicles for plot summaries; moreover, WT:FICT is a discussion to which you cannot apparently be bothered to contribute, although you have plenty of time to report me to AE, although not enough time to notify me. But I harp.
I discussed this merge at some length and explained, with specific reference to our policy pages and ongoing discussions why this merge was justified by consensus practices. I - note, I - was then reverted without explanation by several editors who didn't bother to discuss the matter with me, but simply undid my efforts with a "no consensus" explanation. I have notified editors Catchpole and Rebecca that their dismissive revert, absent discussion, despite the heretofore referenced discussion which I had initiated and the actions which I had substantiated, was unacceptable. Both are cognisant of, but indifferent to, the consensus practices to which I had repeatedly made reference and to which they had the opportunity to contribute but simply - like you - could not be bothered. And yet you have time to bring me to AE. But don't have time to inform me. But I harp.
Apparently you don't have enough time to read the Arbcom ruling either. This is not a victory for one side or another, despite the apparent widespread conviction that it sanctioned content deemed otherwise unacceptable per WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. That is not true. The arbcom case:
No good faith evaluation of my efforts or my edits, combined with my extensive contribution history of improving and adding content to Wikipedia, including the kind of shit translation work that few editors bother to do, could be interpreted as constituting a breach of that ruling, at least not without first bringing your concerns to me so I could politely and reasonably provide you context for the actions undertaken with which you disagree. In case you hadn't noticed, my sobriquet is Eusebeus not TTN. But then, if you hadn't time to notify me of this attempt to smear my editing record, why should I expect you to have the time to read the arbcom case you were referencing. Or even time to notify ... But I harp.
Listen, I understand you are unhappy that Wikipedia is not a fansite and I wish you had chosen to talk to me civilly about this instead of needlessly wasting up the time of arbcom and imputing my good faith and my intent. I have contributed to the discussions and debates that provide the context for my actions and i reject your appeal that permits you to engage in this drive-by without being called to task for it. Your Who-Me? shucksterism in comments like i stated what you had done and gave proof, i leave it up to the community to decide who is right doesn't wash. You should at least show contrition for the way you have proceeded in violation of the good faith principles, consensus practices and guideline and policy discussions that serve to keep this project vaguely glued together. Not whine about my supposedly supercilious attitude.
As for the diffs provided by Pumpkin they are hardly germane. The "obscenity" he refers is used to describe an article that I myself authored - go read the article if you like and try to watch more George Carlin. The ruining it for everyone is a joke; but I urge you to read the diff that Pumpkin provides in that instance because I think it offers an excellent summary of that editor's disruptive and pointy practices. But this is irrelevant to the larger problem posed by your conduct here, as I see it. Eusebeus ( talk) 20:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I've seen TTN (after Ep & Char 2) tagging articles for lack of notability (see, eg here) Now, I'm not trying to call him out on this or get any enforcement going, but I see people a bit upset at these edits and thus seek clarification to make sure that he's not stepping on the toes of this.
The decision text is : TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate.
Now
Everything else he's done (only within the last week sicne the case was closed) seems reasonable (trimming character lists but not deleting or merging or redirecting anything). Again, I only seek clarification if the broad interpretation of the ArbCom relates to the notability tagging activities, and if TTN should be warned that he's getting close. If he's not close to any issue raised by Arbcom, then end of discussion. -- MASEM 14:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm requesting immediate removal of editing privileges of user Aude with regards to the 9/11 attacks article as well as removing any of his/hers revisions. This user made
enormous, even preposterous changes in the main space without sharing a single thought on talk page! Such actions are in direct violation of
each and every decision Arbcom made and thus constitute outrageous and utterly unacceptable form of vandalism (harsh, but most appropriate allegation this is!). We are witnessing utter disregard to our policies, utter disregard to the community and utter disregard to the consensus by a single editor. Let me ask you, what sort of place we have here if the free minded editors who act in good faith have to bow and take these sorts of insults, a slap on the face of our whole community this is! I'm expecting immediate response to this issue; there are no words strong enough to condemn actions of this particular user and the complicit silence which follows his/hers unacceptable behavior.
Tachyonbursts (
talk) 00:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
There's no violation of the arbcom decision here. I would advise Tachyonbursts to carefully review Wikipedia's definition of vandalism and its policy on personal attacks. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 01:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
We have a big problem at this article with a tendentious group of editors who have conducted a straw poll and decided that those who believe in fringe theories may write about them as if they are mainstream views. [65] This horrendous POV pushing needs to be stopped, and policies such as WP:UNDUE need to be enforced. There is an arbitration decision, I believe, covering all 9/11-related articles. Jehochman Talk 02:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I've invoked the arbcom decision to ban Thomas from September 11 attacks-related articles. I've noted such on his talk page. Raul654 ( talk) 04:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Here's another long time source of POV pushing on this article. [72] This editor should be subject to the same sanction. Jehochman Talk 12:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I'd ask for consideration of action on this editor as well. His quote sums up his purpose here pretty well: The mainstream account is propaganda created by the Bush regime, repeated verbatim by a captive domestic media, then parroted again by foreign media. [75] Look at this revert [76] "an uncounted, but presumably large number of members of the engineering community"?? Presumably?? Why do we have to put up with this? RxS ( talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Xiutwel ( talk · contribs · count) is another user engaging in tendentious pro-Truther soapboxing and stonewalling. [77] [78] Additionally, they left me a bogus warning, apparently in retaliation for my involvement above. [79] This account proudly declares on their user page that they are here for the purpose of ideological struggle. [80] I suggest either a final warning, topic ban, or indefinite block for disruption, as appropriate in the discretion of the administrator who reviews this request. The time for nonsense on these articles has come and gone. Xiutwel participated in the arbitration case, so they are certainly on notice about what is acceptable, and what isn't. [81] Jehochman Talk 02:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It is painfully obvious that Jehochman is using arbitration enforcement to stiffle different opinions and views he personally disagress with. Jehochman is attempting to silence the contributions all of the editors he is in an edit war with, and involved admins such as Raul654 are silencing these editors, with no warning as the arbitration decisions demands.
Everything that Jehochman claims these users are guilty of he and other "deletionist" editors are guilty of also. I find it very ironic that Haemo writes: [Xiutwel] "convinced himself that he's neutral and everyone else is biased" when Jehochman, Haemo, Ice Cold beer, Aude and other editors here, who have extremely strong biases against alternative views about 9/11, feel that only their views are NPOV. It is clear that Jehochman and the rest of these "deletionists" are also in an " ideological struggle". Jehochman is as guilty of edit warring as these other users. He did not abide by the straw poll which he lost. The blatant hypocricy here of the "deletionists" here boggles the mind.
Xiutwel's, Thomas's, Popsy's and the other conspiracy theorists ideas about 9/11 are silly and have no basis in fact. But a large minority of people agree with these users, and if Wikipedia is truly to have a "neutral point of view" these "conspiracy theorists" sourced views belong on Wikipedia also. Inclusionist ( talk) 04:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Xiutwel ( talk · contribs) has been indefinitely banned from all pages related to 9/11 by Chetblong ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). east.718 at 12:11, April 24, 2008
{{Following in User:67.164.76.73's footsteps (see resolved, below), except he's already done 2 each today on Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center, Jesse Ventura, and Template:911tm.
Has claimed in the past to be User:Bov, who has been warned many times, but not necessarily since the Arbcom.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Can we get an uninvolved admin here for a warning/block (whatever you feel is appropriate at this point). Less than 20 edits and he's called an editor in good standing a vandal (twice) [84], reverted an edit after calling for sanctions on that same editor [85] and this I'd kindly suggest you explain your conduct which I consider to constitute deliberate omission of unacceptable behavior by user Aude. [86]. All in as I say, less than 20 edits. Thanks. RxS ( talk) 02:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
NOTE: The following input might be more difficult to follow than incivility since it's content related. However, it depicts a POV source related problem.
Previously Eleland has,
(a) Rejected Washington Times and the BBC to promote -- alongside
PalestineRemembered (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) -- the
WP:FRINGE theory/blood-libel that
Battle of Jenin was (supposedly) a large scale massacre.
[91],
[92],
[93]
(b) Replaced "partisan-hackery links" (
CAMERA,
AIJAC) with (neutral?)
ElectronicIntifada.net.
[94]
(c) Rejected '
Arutz Sheva', a leading right wing Israeli news outlet for it's (alleged) -
"reputation for producing outright fraudulent "news", calling it a "disreputable racist fringe source".
[95]
(d) He even rejected the word 'documentary' to describe a video only using live-recorded clips of real life situations based on the notion that
"it's full of lies".
[96]
(e) He's also made a similar BLP violation, reinstating a quote made on March 5 into a lead paragraph on
Operation Defensive Shield, an Israeli response to a month of suicide bombings culminating with a March 27th attack;
[97] this after the paragraph/quote context was explained more than once (
[98],
[99]).
In continuation with the previous "rv extremist POV" diff (above) Eleland was also taking part in a WP:GAME team war approach -- following Pedro Gonnet (now Pedrito) and Nickhh -- to creating/supporting BLP violations on Avigdor Lieberman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a right-wing Israeli politician.
I would like your thoughts on whether this comment is in violation of enforcement 1 of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch (found here). henrik• talk 20:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Yes, you're probably right ... it was probably just obnoxious, I probably just over-reacted (Note: I am not being sarcastic, I just think JE is right)
Look, no offense, but as the victim of the attack I object. We don't normally cite or jail victims. •Jim62sch• dissera! 21:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I was about to close this thread, as I have made things clear to both editors here and here, but I see this thread still has legs. On the other hand, Newyorkbrad intervened directly here. I'm not sure if this means the thread should be left open, to allow assessment of Jim's responses, or whether it would be better to close it all now. I would favour the latter, but will let someone else do it if they agree. I will add notes to the case pages later, once the threads are definitely closed. Carcharoth ( talk) 21:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
TTN was blocked for one week today, despite the fact that he has not violated a single term of the restrictions from his arbcom enforcement. "Broadly interpreting" [100] and [101] as substantially amounting to a merge or deletion is a broad interpretation beyond all reason.
Arbcom did not say that TTN couldn't trim bad articles. It did not say that he couldn't discuss deletions on talk pages. It just did not say anything against the things that TTN has actually done. This block should be reversed immediately. Kww ( talk) 17:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Kww is missing the whole point of arbcom and this page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Yes, again a topic about TTN. I believe that this diff and this diff are violations of his probation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#TTN_restricted. I'm more concerned about the first diff. He either needs to be blocked or the arbcom remedy needs to be tweaked, as it says "television character... to be interpreted broadly" which I am lumping video games under due to their similarities and the fact that this problem was evident during the arbitration hearings. Since I took part in the debate I'm not taking any action myself. Wizardman 03:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Indeed. And this keeps coming up here. One week block for TTN. Also see [102]. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
} ScienceApologist ( talk · contribs) I feel that these comments made by ScienceApologist against me (and CorticoSpinal) violate the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist_restricted his ArbCom in that it represents an uncivil personal attack. ScienceApologist and I have had our differences in the past, but we have not crossed paths for at least a month now, making this attack on my character unprovoked (and in my opinion unwarranted). Specifically, I take offense to ScienceApologist describing me as a "Chiropractic true-believer" and my actions as "soapboxing" and my beliefs as "weird", "preposterous" and not "sane". Essentially, he has called me an insane chiropractic true-believer soapboxing preposterous beliefs. Not only is this uncivil, it is also a poor characterization of myself, my beliefs and my actions.
I took a gander at other edits/comments ScienceApologist has made just today and it appears that I am not the only editor he is currently disrespecting in this way. Please consider the following diffs here he also calls editors "anti scientific" and "braindead", etc.: [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] And this is just from today and from a pretty cursory search. I just don't this is acceptable behavior from a recidivist such as ScienceApologist. I understand that he has strong opinions, but he definitely knows better. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Oh give me a break, Levine. Your first diff is merely a statement of support for QuackGuru by SA, it's hardly anything bad. I've got to ask--isn't there something better to do with your time but engage in a regular posting to here about SA? I honestly quit reading what you say about SA and what he says about you 6 months ago. I only came here because I was reviewing something else, and noticed your posting. I don't like your POV, I don't agree with your POV, and i think your POV is off someplace far away from my education, but, in general, I don't think you should engage in these battles, because it makes you look bad. It's beneath you. Engage intellectually, not with this back and forth complaints. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
He's been insulting me all over the place, called me a Hypocrite in a headline a while back, and more stuff just today. Does that count, or is it my fault that he acts the way he does? I mean, it's always been my fault before, right? [109] [110] [111] [112] In addition to the usual edit warring and disruption and POV pushing with terrible sources like blogs or the personal webspace of assistant professors [113] under the veil of PARITY. You excuse all this because he gives fringe POV pushers a hard time? Good for him, but please notice the other stuff. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
By the way, to let people understand that I'm acting in good faith here, please see my talk page where I think civility discussions can be had civilly. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Get real. You all know. I hate to do this, but I know you know, and I even have one diff to prove it [114] Don't be the first and third monkies, because they are not wise. You have completely abdicated your jobs as admins of wikipedia, to preserve the collegial editing environment of this place. Even with an ArbCom sanction behind you, which you should not need. It is absolutely, 100% disgusting, and you should be completely ashamed of yourselves. If you betray Wikipedia like this, why do you edit here at all? Or are you all afraid of Raul? Are you all afraid of JzG? There is a limit beyond which it is also unwise to refrain from speaking of negativity, and you have crossed it. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
OK, I was mad. I think there are admins here genuinely trying to actually do something. And I thank them for at least trying, even if it is months and years of extreme disruption late. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Here's a link for you. And it isn't like this is the only thing. [115] —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Closing comment...enough already. This has descended into a finger-pointing complaint session by both sides. Before writing anything about someone else, ask "Would I want to be called that?". If not, don't write it. If it's borderline don't write it-this would stop all the attempts here where users throw up a report just to see what sticks; only truly legit reports would get filed if this were to occur. For example, maybe you wouldn't mind being called "braindead", but it would offend a lot of people. Also, you (you as in everyone, both sides) may consider your efforts on wiki non-POV, but others may not. If everyone involved here would take a step back, take a deep breath, and admit that the world of wiki is plenty big for everyone, things would be a lot calmer. These types of disputes start and go on and on when no one allows room for the other side. I see this not only in the pseudoscience area, but Mid-East, East Europe, Sri Lanka, etc disputes. On top of all this, there's about disagreement about the civility here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
User RodentofDeath, who is banned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RodentofDeath and has previous violations for breaching his ban has returned using a well laid out sockpuppet plan of attack using two sockpupputs.
Banned User RodentofDeath seems to have reapperared in breach of his ban once again, this time using various sockpuppets in a well laid out sockpuppet attatck against the same articles as before his ban, as well as his usual attacks and complaints against me. RodentofDeath has already twice been caught out breaching his ban before. He has reapperared using two sockpuppets. the first is user: HurryTaken. When one takes a look at the posting he first appears on March 8 with his first post in a deletion talk on an article that Rodent was strongely involved in. After a few minor posts, he then starts launching attacks against me in his usual style in the discussion area of another article Rodent was involved in.... http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Human_trafficking_in_the_Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=208509828
His last Eleven posts have all been attacks against me. This sockpuppet has been editing the same articles RodentofDeath did in the exact same manner. Removing anything I have posted and anything referring to human traficking in Angeles, which has been the single purpose of the RodentofDeath account. — Susanbryce — continues after insertion below
It should be noted that the user has also been busy posting complaints againstr me to administrators, a usual tactic of RodentofDeath.... http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=208504240 — Susanbryce — continues after insertion below
The other sockpuppet RodentofDeath is using in this plan is user : Luzonman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Luzonman
This sockpuppet was activated just several days after the other sockpuppet. It has also soon started editing the same articles RodentofDeath did in the exact same manner. Removing anything I have posted and anything referring to human traficking in Angeles, which has been the single purpose of the RodentofDeath account. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Charities_in_the_Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=208497245
Also, both sockpuppets appear to be posting immediatly after each other. example: (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Human trafficking in the Philippines?; 12:07 . . (+322) . . HurryTaken (Talk | contribs) (?Line that makes no sense: added link to article and edit.)
(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Human trafficking in the Philippines?; 11:39 . . (+1,009) . . HurryTaken (Talk | contribs) (?Line that makes no sense)
(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Human trafficking in the Philippines?; 10:51 . . (+1,308) . . HurryTaken (Talk | contribs) (?Line that makes no sense)
(diff) (hist) . . Charities in the Philippines?; 10:23 . . (-172) . . Luzonman (Talk | contribs) (?ReachOut Foundation International: clarify charity's mission as per their website.)
(diff) (hist) . . Charities in the Philippines?; 10:17 . . (+123) . . Luzonman (Talk | contribs) (?SOS Children's Villages in the Philippines: clarify charity as in cited material.)
(diff) (hist) . . Charities in the Philippines?; 10:08 . . (-91) . . Luzonman (Talk | contribs) (?Sisters Plus: change to info stated in citation.)
(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Human trafficking in the Philippines?; 09:05 . . (+91) . . HurryTaken (Talk | contribs) (?Sex Tourism: Forgot to sign)
(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Human trafficking in the Philippines?; 09:04 . . (+1,973) . . HurryTaken (Talk | contribs)
It appears RodentofDeath has no regard for the ban or rules. He is engaging in any way possible to curcumvent that ban. Susanbryce ( talk) 02:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
He has added text in the middle of my text, can this matter be tidied up? Once again, typical RodentofDeath behaviour as he has done this often before. Susanbryce ( talk) 04:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The RFCU was inconclusive. I would tend to assume good faith and assume these editors are not SPs of Rodent. What we need to monitor is disruption, by all parties to the dispute. I would suggest we keep these articles in our watchlists for a few weeks and encourage editos to follow dispute resolution if they get stuck. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I concur with Edgarde on this. HurryTaken's edit history is that of RodentofDeath. If we fail to take action against this sockpuppet, it will only make matters worse and embolden RodentofDeath to set up more sockpuppets. It may be that Luzonman is not a sock, but a genuine editor. But HurryTaken is RodentofDeath 100%. Susanbryce ( talk) 16:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It is a very interesting situation. Edg says that my comments on this page are consistent with Rodent. Are they? Our subject interest may be. But I would argue our actions and the way we handle bringing up difference of opinions are quite different. I also believe our writing styles and grammar are quite different. Am I faking this? Is this learned behavior? Again, our subject concerns are indeed similar. And the issues I raise may be issue he raised. But again, does that mean that I am him? Would it have been wiser for me to sign up for an account the entire time I sat on the sidelines and watched the previous situation unfold? Lar even noted the issues I have brought up have some merit in the RFCU. So I again submit that a portion of this seems to be to stifle or silence views, opinions, thoughts or contributions that don't fall in line with the editor that submitted this AE. Edg has long been a supporter of this editor. As Thatcher pointed out, I cannot prove my innocence based on the IP's I happen to come from. This is what it is and I cannot control it. Perhaps only established editors may contribute to and raise issues with these articles. My question then becomes how can I prove that I am not Rodent? In what ways can I convince those that would judge me and decide my fate here on Wikipedia that I am not him? I have my IP's which I cannot control. I have my written words and counterpoints that I would put forward to hopefully convince others that I am not him. But what else can I do? Can I make a pledge to only bring up issues and concerns I have on the talk pages and not edit articles this editor is involved in? (Which is actually what I intended to do all along.) I never planned on editing any articles this editor was involved in. I already firmly believe this editor has a strong emotional involvement and attachment to all the articles they edit here. Perhaps that is good and perhaps that is also a little bad. But it does bring up some legitimate POV concerns. Rather, my approach was to bring up issues and concerns and edit by consensus. On the [ talk page] for the Human Trafficking in Philippines article I bring up what I consider to be a very legitimate point. According to a 2004 source in that article, 300,000 Japaneses sex tourists visit the Philippines each year. However, according to the Philippines own official numbers, 322,896 Japanese tourists visited the Philippines in 2003. That means that 93% of all Japanese visitors to the Philippines are sex tourists. I think that source and issue needs to be discussed because those two numbers contradict themselves severely. I believe a lot of other articles have significant issues as well. I would like the opportunity to bring up those issues for discussion. This is something Rodent never did. He name called, edit warred, attacked. This is something I have not done and would never do. Again, according to Edg lessons learned. But a lose-lose situation for me. I have an interest in a subject Rodent had. I signed up after Rodent was banned. I must be him. Again, how can I prove I am not? HurryTaken ( talk) 03:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Is this user a ban evading sock? Jehochman Talk 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I asked for a checkuser last night. Came back unrelated. Must say I'm still uneasy. Be aware that in this particular dispute spoofing/joe jobbing has also been a significant possibility. Durova Charge! 14:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
FWIW (really short summary here because I've gotta run), during last month's AE thread User:Benjiboi and User:Eleemosynary got trolled on their talk pages by an AOL IP address. Then very shortly afterward they got friendly follow-ups by a sock that acted like User:Pwok. Looked like Matt had trolled them, only Matt was in France and couldn't have accessed AOL, and when I contacted him he didn't know anything about it (I still have the chat log; he acted genuinely surprised). So that looks like a joe job. Add to substantiate Matt's claim to having been in France at that time:
So the AOL IP trolling from a month ago was probably Pwok and the French IP trolling from a month ago was definitely Matt. Is that murky enough for you? I had a hard talk with Matt afterward. He pledged to cease the trolling on-wiki. And although I'll be unavailable most of today I'm very interested in the results of the investigation and checkuser. Durova Charge! 15:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Would someone else please look at this. I have again rolled back Brianlandeche's edits to Matt Sanchez. He denies editing by proxy, but has admitted above that Sanchez asked him to look at the article. Horologium and I could use some additional eyes here. Aleta Sing 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The history shows Giovanni33 has been quite involved in this. John Smith's has many edits to the talk page recently, but few to the article page. I myself gave both users a final warning on 01 Feb. I find Giovanni33 did revert twice and has edit warred on this article and John Smith's has not. Therefore I am blocking Giovanni33 72 hours. I highly encourage both editors to learn to settle their differences.
Giovanni33 has been
placed on revert parole (1 a week, per article).
Giovanni has been edit-warring at the State terrorism and the United States article again.
Revert number 1:
Revert number 2:
The article is controversial enough as it is, but Giovanni persists in reverting. In the past I have asked him to not revert and seek consensus for his edits given the controversial nature of the page. Indeed I have not reported him on occasion. But he doesn't seem to be listening.
I am informing him of the report, so he will have the opportunity to self-revert. Even though other editors have fought over the text he restored in his last reversion, it is still there so he can remove it. If he removes it, it may also help stop the edit-warring as editors that share his position may not then put the text back. If he does self-revert a block won't be necessary. But he has been warned and blocked in the past - I'm not sure what can change his behaviour. An admin taking charge over the long-term might help. John Smith's ( talk) 10:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I've full protected the article as there seems to be an edit war going on. I'll wait til Giovanni responds here before proceeding further. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There have been several similar incidents earlier where Giovanni33 has reverted and then when reported here claims innocence, mistakes and being persecuted. [1] [2] [3] Ultramarine ( talk) 19:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Meowy ( talk · contribs) has been placed on revert parole and other restrictions in accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ruling: [4] which limited him to 1 rv per week. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
However on 2008 Mardakert skirmishes Meowy made an rv [5] of a very dubious merit (removing the word “unrecognized” which was clearly in relation to the self-proclaimed republic and not the flag, so the pretext is baseless and the rv was disruptive) and failed to discuss it on the talk of the relevant article, which he is required to do in accordance to his parole. Previously the same edit was made by banned User:Azad chai ( 149.68.31.146 ( talk · contribs) and other edit warring anons on the same page are Azad chai or his friends). This is not the first violation of parole by Meowy, he was warned and blocked for violations before. [6] Grandmaster ( talk) 07:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
}
I have been referred here from ANI. (Background at ANI two days ago.) Unfortunately, Tango's warning to MONGO has been rejected and ignored. MONGO obviously thinks he's in the right here. We may as well get ArbCom's rememedy tested sooner, rather than waiting til later.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 09:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I have blocked MONGO for one week for incivility. He has a history of bad attitude and shows no signs of learning. Telling an admin to "get lost" when they issue an official warning is not acceptable behaviour. I have requested a review of this block on WP:AN/I. -- Tango ( talk) 13:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Strongly recommend Tango recuse himself from further blocking on Mongo and refer future problems to a single noticeboard for uninvolved review. Durova Charge! 16:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Mongo's efforts in maintaining the standards of the Wikipedia with all things 9/11-related over the years are nothing short of heroic. Getting 9/11 conspiracy theories into the Wikipedia as a means of validating them is on-going and unrelenting. Of course, each external link monetizes a conspiracy theory edit. As an editor of some of those articles I realized that only a admin would be able to stop the articles from being taken over by people with the conspiracy agenda (i.e. "we took down the towers" or "we let them take down the towers") or the moral-equivalence agenda "we deserved 9/11."
The block on Mongo really chills any attempt on the part of editors or admins to engage the agenda warriors so that 9/11 as a conspiracy is prevented from being presented as the primary credible reason for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The other observation that anyone reading about this can make is that persistence pays. If you push and push long enough, the will be some technical issue, Wiki-law, or admin exhaustion that will let you acquire control of an article or a set of articles.
Too many admins were in an ivory tower when Mongo was down in the mud protecting the 9/11 articles from being echoes of conspiracy theory sites. And if anyone wants to repetitively edit that 9/11 was a conspiracy, the "Save Page" is always there for them. I fear the floodgates will open.
I suspect without new and on-going vigilance on the part of other admins, critics of the Wikipedia will find that 9/11 articles will be their one stop shop to see where truly anyone can edit anything. patsw ( talk) 17:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I've unblocked MONGO after consulting the most recent blocking admin. [8] I also tried talking to Tango, [9] but he's gone offline, and I feel that a 16-block is more than long enough. There was substantial concern about the block among editors I respect, expressed on AN/I and the RfAr, including DHeyward, Jehochman, Kelly, Guy, Giano, Bishzilla, Orderinchaos, Raymond Aritt, Durova, Eusebeus, Alex Bakharev, Newyorkbrad, and others. The consequence of the block seems to be that MONGO has left the project, a decision I hope he'll reconsider. SlimVirgin talk| edits 06:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
IP has been argumentative and incivil on the September 11, 2001 attacks, claiming editors have hijacked the article, claiming editors are oppressing content, massive bad faith assumptions and personal attacks and soapboxing, they'll just ignore you or start whining.
These pages are subject to Arbcom remedies and as we've seen in the Mongo case the threshold is significantly lower as a result. There's no reason regular editors in good standing have to put up with this sort of abuse. These pages have been home to these kinds of attacks and innuendo for a long time and we need to start policing it. With "the big stick" remedy we can go forward and use the remedy provided us. Someone please block for an appropriate period of time. Thanks. RxS ( talk) 17:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Per case Betacommand 2 remedy
12.3.1.A, in a recent bot request for approval, betacommand has told a user to shut up
[10], and generally greeted questions and comments from this user as 'personal attacks'.
MickMacNee (
talk) 15:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
If this was an incorrect filing then I suggest the text in 'how to use this page': (Provide) A brief summary of how this behavior is linked to the principles, findings of fact, remedies, and/or enforcement mechanism of the arbitration case needs to be changed. MickMacNee ( talk) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I should make it clear that I was not offended. While not optimal, I'm scarcely going to be deeply offended by playground incivility. There's also a not-insignificant chance that I was wrong, and betacommand and I are (I think) agreeing to disagree about our different definitions of a bot. AKAF ( talk) 16:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The remedy in question is not enforceable (and "shut up" is not worthy of a civility block on its own) but I strongly request that Betacommand not throw the word "libel" about like so much confetti. Saying that you might have violated Wikipedia policy is not libellous. Don't be a silly sausage. Moreschi2 ( talk) 19:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Just an FYI, one of the socks of either User:Neutral Good/ User:BryanFromPalatine, depending on how you follow the pattern of evidence. In either case, per Checkuser evidence this was all confirmed up as likely the same person and direct geographic location as BFP, and through consensus the lot were asked again to leave for the better of Wikipedia. Specific to both Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding. The sock account seems to be asking for an unblock. Lawrence § t/ e 15:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
User:Asgardian was restricted from edit warring as a determination of a Dec. 3, 2007 Arbitration decision here. The decision reads in part, "He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page."
Despite this he has incurred two blocks, plus an extension and a sockpuppet use, as documented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae#Log of blocks and bans.
Since then, he has gradually made small reverts over time that he has been warned are in contradiction to WikiProject Comics' editorial guidelines.
He has now more formally violated his one-revert-per-week restriction by two reverts in less than six hours, at Infinity Gauntlet, JLA/Avengers section:
As well, he generally does not — and in this April 17 case did not — "discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page". Indeed, he responded to a request to respect editorial guidelines with an attack on the requester, here ("Over-reaction [sic]. Avoid emotive and POV terms such as 'pray'. There are no martyrs here.") This, while refusing, despite two requests over two days, to discuss the content change as required.
I've stayed off Wikipedia for a while largely because of this kind of thing, and Asgardian's reverts began as soon as I returned. Please ... I sincerely request enforcement of the Arb decision.-- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The assumption that there has been a breach is also incorrect, as the opening sentence of the article - the point of contention for the user - was not reverted. In addition to retaining another small grammer change I made another change that the user missed. There was not a blind revert. Tenebrae just needs to pay a tad more attention (another example being the article Masters of Evil, where he blindly reverted much of his own work on the Publication History simply because he didn't like a minor change I made afterwards).
I'm much more of a team player these days, and just proved this by working through another article - Galactus - with another user over a number of sessions. I'm also going to take the issue of what is and isn't fictional to WikiProject Comics for more discussion. Not the acts of someone looking for an edit war.
That said, hopefully cooler heads will prevail.
Asgardian ( talk) 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Asgardian ( talk) 08:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The previous 2 reports were removed from ANI by a bot after 24 hours, without any resolution. I posted this report at ANI because User:Babakexorramdin was not a subject of Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom cases. User:Babakexorramdin attempted to reveal a personal identity and falsely associate me with a different real person. A few days ago, he left an edit comment:
Although he is denying any linkage to a real person in his comment [12], but rather some ancient term, which no longer exists, I have finally contacted the alleged person linked to me, and Babakexorramdin was apparently contacting this person, accusing him of being myself, and harassing him on a regular basis via email. I have an email evidence.
I do believe User:Babakexorramdin was misled by prior SAME allegation of User:Artaxiad - [13], for which he was banned - [14]. User:Kirill Lokshin then deleted all of references to the full name of person (Javid ...) falsely associated by Artaxiad with my account. Now, over a year later, User:Babakexorramdin makes the same claim. The question is how did Babakexorramdin get information to make such claim if Artaxiad is banned and links are removed for a year now.
I am also a subject of harassment - [15] by User:VartanM and by User:Fedayee here - [16]. They previously also harassed another Azerbaijani contributor, User:Ehud Lesar, which resulted in ArbCom case, where their allegations were proven false. VartanM recently made another statement on archived ANI report [17]:
I don't know of any Wikipedia rule, where contributor must provide his identity or any other non-admin contributor (VartanM, participant of 2 ArbComs) is supposed to investigate other people's personal identity and then (falsely so) use it in his incessant edit fights. Atabek ( talk) 14:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
What does this have to do with the essence of report, which is harassment? As I said, there is email evidence of harassment directed against both myself as well as real-life person, whose name was used to falsely associate with me. Atabek ( talk) 21:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
That's a ridiculous claim, and with all assumptions of good faith, I doubt User:CreazySuit could serve as a neutral party in argument vs. User:Babakexorramdin. I am not forum shopping, but only seeking to remove the revision reciting someone's name, for which I will follow advise to request that from oversight. I don't know Babakexorramdin, neither have any grudges against him or had any interaction with him in order to seek his removal. Revealing someone's identity (the intent) by false association, making the person subject to harassment by email or real life is a violation and has nothing to do with intent of Wikipedia in first place. As a matter of fact, I never sought to ever seek the real life identity of VartanM, Fedayee, Artaxiad or other contributors who were engaged in edit conflicts with myself. I don't see a reason why they should be doing so. Atabek ( talk) 05:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
While I am aware that the Arbcom restriction ended on April 11, I (and VartanM as well) did still respect 1RR to not spread another series of revert wars (since it seems both Grandmaster and Atabek thought they were still under restriction). But this has become out of proportion since Grandmaster and Atabek continue to revert without reading. They ignore talkpages and their justifications in them has little to do with their reverts. See Grandmaster’s last justification for example and see what has been reverted. Either Grandmaster did not read the justifications or has completely ignored on purpose what has taken me countless hours to write and explain.
First evidence that Grandmaster did not read what he has reverted is that the version to which Grandmaster has reverted is not the original version as he claims; he reverted to the version which contained Atabek’s changes of yesterday. I already explained the problem with that addition more than once.
Atabek’s added text contains this: the mass of the Oghuz Turkic tribes who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateau, which remained Persian, and established themselves more to the west, in Caucasus and Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name "Turkmen" for a long time: from the 13th century onwards they "Turkised" the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan, thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris.
And this is the text from the note provided: the mass of the Oghuz Turkic tribes who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateau, which remained Persian, and established themselves more to the west, in Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name "Turkmen" for a long time: from the 13th century onwards they "Turkised" the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris.
Note that Atabek copied word for word the author and dishonestly added the word Caucasus and removed the information in the parentheses about the former language of Azerbaijan. Atabek was already warned to not do that, to not take sections of texts from authors and incorporates them in articles as if he wrote them. He has to re-word them or place them in quotes. Besides, it was already explained that what Atabek has added is irrelevant to the article or at least he threw it in an incoherent way in an already incoherent and disorganized version. Also note Grandmaster’s justification, when the version he reverted does not even speak of the Turkmen once. Grandmaster has used a disagreement in the talkpage used as an example to work on an irrelevant argumentation to revert me, when his argument is irrelevant to the content he re-introduced. Grandmaster and Atabek continue thinking that justifying reverts is to add just text in the talkpage regardless of if it is relevent as a justification of the revert itself.
In fact, reading the article you will note that important sections have been removed from it, such as organization and context. Never did Atabek or Grandmaster justify the removal of those additions. Not once… they didn’t even bring it once in the talkpage. Once reverted is an accident, but with the number of reverts without addressing the rest of the text is not an accident. If they both had a problem with the word Turkic, they would have changed the term leaving the re-organization of the text and the new elements added there. But instead the Turkic term was used as a pretext to remove information and re-introduce redundancy and/or irrelevancy. Thanks. - Fedayee ( talk) 21:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Possible violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories, requesting sanctions:
User Osli73
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Osli73 has a history of willfully violating probations including the use of sockpuppets on articles related to the former Yugoslavia.
One can see at the bottom of this arbitration webpage that he has been blocked repeatedly for willfully violating sanctions placed against his edit warring and sockpuppetry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Involved_parties
For example:
Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) 3 months per 1 month tthis AE post. Please note this is Osli's fourth block. --wL<speak·check> 07:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for 2 weeks for breaking the revert limit on Srebrenica massacre; also banned from editing Srebrenica massacre for 3 months. Thatcher131 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for two weeks for directly violating his probation and revert parole at Srebrenica massacre. --Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for one week for directly violating his probation and revert parole by using a sockpuppet to edit war at Srebrenica massacre. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Blocked KarlXII (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Osli73 (talk · contribs) proven by checkuser. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
On March 19, 2008, Osli73 received the following probation from administrator Thatcher explicitly forbidding Osli73 from more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Mujahadin , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen
Despite the explicit probation against more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles, user Osli73 has again engaged in edit warring, reverting the Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen articles repeatedly, for example Osli made the following 8 reverts to the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles from April 8 to April 14:
diffs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205563168
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205562519
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205439461
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205437228
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205144618
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204899529
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204888935
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204184557
From his statements, Osli73 has shown that he fully understands the restrictions placed upon him. From his actions, he has shown that he is not willing to abide by those restrictions.
I am notifying the administrators that have sanctioned Osli73 in the past as well as notifying Osli73 of this posting. Especially with articles involving the former Yugoslavia, it is imperative that users respect the limits placed upon their editing. If the more vitriolic editors involved in former Yugoslavia articles see that Osli73 is not held accountable for his his transgressions, then there is greater likelihood of out-of-control edit warring as there has been in the past. Fairview360 ( talk) 05:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Sockpuppet?
On 18 December 2006, Srikeit ( talk · contribs) blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week because of sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole in Srebrenica massacre.
I think Osli created another account Jonathanmills ( talk · contribs) in order to edit Srebrenica massacre:
If you search through his edits you will realise that both of them edited Konjic article (?!) It is impossible that they are both interested in Konjic village in Herzegovina ?! Osli allegedly from Sweden, and Jonathanmills from England, both interested in a village in a country that most people never heard of ?!
Due to the fact that it has already been proven Osli was a sockpuppeteer in Srebrenica massacre article, this is a good reason to ask for another check user. They even have the same greetings, it is enough to look at the talk pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.39.121 ( talk)
Before Philip Baird Shearer proceeds any further in this discussion, he ought to clarify if he is purporting to be in the role of administrator here or rather simply expressing his opinion as an editor.
Wiki policy is quite clear concerning when an administrator should not use his administrative tools, ie. not act as an administrator.
Philip Baird Shearer is very much an involved editor here. He has not only edited the articles affected by Osli73's behavior, Philip Baird Shearer has engaged in multiple reverts often in concert with Osli73. Of course, Philip Baird Shearer is entirely free to act as an editor and passionately defend his point of view as others do the same. But if he wants to play on one soccer team against another and at the same time keep a whistle in his mouth as a referee of that very same game, there is obviously a confliict of interest.
Other administrators, who have edited Bosnia-related articles -- actually less than Philip Baird Shearer -- have expressly refrained from using any of their administrative tools, refrained from acting as an administrator, and instead, when aware of an issue worthy of administrative review, referred their concerns to other administrators who are not involved editors.
Wiki policy found on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators is as clear as need be: "Administrators should not use their tools where they are a party (or significant editor).
A review of Philip Baird Shearer's edits of the Bosnian Genocide, Srebrenica Massacre, and Bosnian Mujahideen articles will show that he is indeed very much an involved editor. He has contributed content and reverted multiple times. On the Bosnian Genocide article, among scores of reverts in the midst of edit warring, he has specifically reverted back to the last version by Osli73 many times.
And yet, with both the Bosnian Mujahideen and Bosnian Genocide article, he has used his administrative powers to protect the articles and thereby lock in the version that he himself has been creating and defending as an editor.
It is not a question of content. Many of Philip Baird Shearer's contributions are quite thoughtful even when taking a position that is strongly opposed by other editors. However, it does appear that Philip Baird Shearer is in clear violation of wiki policy which prohibits involved editors acting simultaneously as administrators. No matter how intent Philip Baird Shearer may be towards objectivity, his personal involvement with the content and the editors in question disqualify him as a disinterested third party as mediators are meant to be. There is a reason why wiki has the policies it has.
So the question returns to Philip Baird Shearer, is he writing here as an editor or an administrator? Fairview360 ( talk) 23:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Philip is not telling the truth. Philip said:" Block log for Osli73 - Much (all?) of his edit warring has been against edits made by sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy."
According to Grandy's contribution, Grandy created his account on 27 September 2007, and Osli has been blocked before that seven times. According to Philip's contribution, Osli and Philip worked together on Bosnian related articles with almost the same opinion. I think Osli should be blocked at least for two months, and of course banned infinitely if the evidence shows he is a sockpuppeteer. 217.75.202.131 ( talk) 13:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
To whomever is deciding on this matter, I would like to make a couple of statements:
Before making a decision I would like to ask the responsible admin to please consider the above. Best regards Osli73 ( talk) 21:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
My response to User:Fairview360's comments above: Fairview360 refers to "vitriolic" editors on Yugoslavia related articles. As far as I am concerned he belongs to this group himself (although he is by no means the worst). Please see some examples of his comments on Talk:Srebrenica massacre below. Most revolving around accusations of my being a genocide denier, Milosevic supporter, supporter of the Greater Serbia project, etc.. Very much in line with his comments above. Please take the time to read them to better understand the background:
Fairview360 was by far not the most "vitriolic" editor, but, as the above comments he made on Talk:Srebrenica massacre show, he did not shy away from personal attacks and bullying. Regards Osli73 ( talk) 17:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The salient issue here is that every wiki editor is obligated to abide by the restrictions placed upon him. The fact is that Osli73 has repeatedly violated the restrictions placed upon him. The question for administrators is what course of action will lead to Osli73 abiding by the sanctions placed upon him.
Fairview360 (
talk) 21:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
On March 19, 2008, Osli73 received the following probation from administrator Thatcher explicitly forbidding Osli73 from more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Mujahadin , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen
Osli73 violated his probation several times. It is up to the appropriate administrators to decide the response to these violations. Fairview360 ( talk) 02:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
At WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive16#Community ban, Vintagekits is listed as one of two users that are banned per behaviour during the "Troubles" arbitration. However, he claims that he is "only" indefinitely blocked and not permanently banned. It appears that he thinks he is eligible to request that the block is lifted one day, and that in the meantime, the methods described at WP:Banning policy#Evasion and enforcement are inappropriate for him. I note that the decision for his most recent indefinite block (!) is described at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive372#User:Vintagekits, and does not actually formally state that he is under community ban. Conversely, I also note that many user comments on WP:AN and WP:ANI since then (e.g. wrt the edit-warring on his user page) imply that those users think he is indeed banned, so it is clear that there is some confusion here. I seek final clarification of his status, with a "formal" notification to Vintagekits stating what it is. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 17:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Regarding the Thomas Basboll block by Raul654, Raul is:
Can someone lift the "September 11 attacks-related articles" ban on Thomas Basboll? This case cannot be anymore clear cut. Inclusionist ( talk) 01:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Before anyone objects that this will allow anyone to get upset and ask an arbitrator to stop such analysis, I would like to point out that Flonight (also an arbitrator) said this:"Fair enough. I think we've both made our points. The best way to de-escalate things might now be if we all step away. Repeating things won't help at this stage, and from what I can see, your continuing comments are not helping (and mine probably aren't either). If you really want Giano to calm down, please consider reducing or archiving or summarising the material currently on your talk page. To be clear, I'm going to make a conscious effort to step away, and I hope you and Giano do as well."
Do we really want an arbitration case about whether arbitrators can analyse at length outside of arbitration cases? And even if FT2 was wearing his administrator's hat, I think the point still stands - he is trying to exert his authority as an arbitrator and, frankly, is (unintentionally) inflaming the situation. I will repeat here my call for everyone to just step back and calm down. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply"I would like to remind both of you that when you speak of Giano that you are talking about a real person. I feel uncomfortable with the manner that you both are analyzing him. Debating about him outside of our normal dispute resolution process is not helpful to the situation, I think."
Emphasis mine. Risker ( talk) 17:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC) replyInsulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all...The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.
Note: The committee is currently voting on a proposal that would restrict who may enforce the sanctions in this case. Any administrator even considering acting on this should read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions#Request for clarification : Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC before acting to see if their authority to act has been restricted. GRBerry 17:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I think long posts associated with Giano are de riguer these days - that he is currently choosing to be upset by FT2s is neither here nor there. FT2, whatever you think of his analysis, is not under a case remedy mandating civility. Giano is. It is instructive that the views on FT2s posts line up roughly with the sides of the general dispute, so I think criticism of his 'psychoanalysis' as its been called should be taken with a grain of salt. At any rate, the question here is this: Is that edit, and the others pointed out by CBM, uncivil and a violation of the case remedy? Note that the motion to restrict who can act on this remedy has not passed, and last I checked didn't have wide support by the Committee. Avruch T 17:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This primarily a continuation of the past block discussion as has occurred elsewhere, especially on FT2's talk page. We can close it as resolved and move on since questions about the block have been asked and answered. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
User:Eusebeus, who is well aware of the decisions of the recent episodes arbcom case, has begun blindly restoring redirects, without the slightest bit of prior discussion, citing
WP:FICT as his basis for this, despite the fact it is still under discussion--
Jac16888 (
talk) 19:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
As requested. The arbcom case this is related to is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, and User:Eusebeus is the only party involved, since attempts to discuss it with him have resulted in blunt, somewhat rude responses which basically equate to "I'm doing this and you can't stop me"-- Jac16888 ( talk) 14:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It's all about how you approach the situation. I didn't directly revert Eusebeus for the .hack characters, because I also added merge tags and I told him that they should still be merged, but we needed to plan it out (the merge target had basically no content at all, and there were multiple games/shows/etc that might be better organized on more than one list). Part of the problem is that it's easy to see these situations as all-or-nothing, even if there are other options. -- Ned Scott 05:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The Scrubs episode articles have been discussed for consisting of nothing but plot since November 2007, and the only way to rectify this per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT is to expand or merge/redirect. The expand didn't happen (it's not even clear that this is possible at all), so it's the latter now. Eusebeus resumed merge discussions after the arbcom case closed (middle of March) and is only taking actions now. Based on that, it would be hard to interpret his actions as wrong. It's been almost five months after all. – sgeureka t• c 11:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Has anyone notified Eusebeus about this discussion? I don't see anything on this talk page, so I'll leave him a note there as well. -- Ned Scott 19:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Ok, Jac, take note since instead of contrition for your wanton breach of conduct, you offer a passive-aggressive defense of your caricature of my actions. Based on your own feelings, based not on Wikipedia praxis or policy, you are unhappy that I merged Scrubs material which does not satisfy our standards at WP:FICT - which in recent review has reconfirmed with additional forcefulness our injunction against standalone articles as vehicles for plot summaries; moreover, WT:FICT is a discussion to which you cannot apparently be bothered to contribute, although you have plenty of time to report me to AE, although not enough time to notify me. But I harp.
I discussed this merge at some length and explained, with specific reference to our policy pages and ongoing discussions why this merge was justified by consensus practices. I - note, I - was then reverted without explanation by several editors who didn't bother to discuss the matter with me, but simply undid my efforts with a "no consensus" explanation. I have notified editors Catchpole and Rebecca that their dismissive revert, absent discussion, despite the heretofore referenced discussion which I had initiated and the actions which I had substantiated, was unacceptable. Both are cognisant of, but indifferent to, the consensus practices to which I had repeatedly made reference and to which they had the opportunity to contribute but simply - like you - could not be bothered. And yet you have time to bring me to AE. But don't have time to inform me. But I harp.
Apparently you don't have enough time to read the Arbcom ruling either. This is not a victory for one side or another, despite the apparent widespread conviction that it sanctioned content deemed otherwise unacceptable per WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. That is not true. The arbcom case:
No good faith evaluation of my efforts or my edits, combined with my extensive contribution history of improving and adding content to Wikipedia, including the kind of shit translation work that few editors bother to do, could be interpreted as constituting a breach of that ruling, at least not without first bringing your concerns to me so I could politely and reasonably provide you context for the actions undertaken with which you disagree. In case you hadn't noticed, my sobriquet is Eusebeus not TTN. But then, if you hadn't time to notify me of this attempt to smear my editing record, why should I expect you to have the time to read the arbcom case you were referencing. Or even time to notify ... But I harp.
Listen, I understand you are unhappy that Wikipedia is not a fansite and I wish you had chosen to talk to me civilly about this instead of needlessly wasting up the time of arbcom and imputing my good faith and my intent. I have contributed to the discussions and debates that provide the context for my actions and i reject your appeal that permits you to engage in this drive-by without being called to task for it. Your Who-Me? shucksterism in comments like i stated what you had done and gave proof, i leave it up to the community to decide who is right doesn't wash. You should at least show contrition for the way you have proceeded in violation of the good faith principles, consensus practices and guideline and policy discussions that serve to keep this project vaguely glued together. Not whine about my supposedly supercilious attitude.
As for the diffs provided by Pumpkin they are hardly germane. The "obscenity" he refers is used to describe an article that I myself authored - go read the article if you like and try to watch more George Carlin. The ruining it for everyone is a joke; but I urge you to read the diff that Pumpkin provides in that instance because I think it offers an excellent summary of that editor's disruptive and pointy practices. But this is irrelevant to the larger problem posed by your conduct here, as I see it. Eusebeus ( talk) 20:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I've seen TTN (after Ep & Char 2) tagging articles for lack of notability (see, eg here) Now, I'm not trying to call him out on this or get any enforcement going, but I see people a bit upset at these edits and thus seek clarification to make sure that he's not stepping on the toes of this.
The decision text is : TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate.
Now
Everything else he's done (only within the last week sicne the case was closed) seems reasonable (trimming character lists but not deleting or merging or redirecting anything). Again, I only seek clarification if the broad interpretation of the ArbCom relates to the notability tagging activities, and if TTN should be warned that he's getting close. If he's not close to any issue raised by Arbcom, then end of discussion. -- MASEM 14:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm requesting immediate removal of editing privileges of user Aude with regards to the 9/11 attacks article as well as removing any of his/hers revisions. This user made
enormous, even preposterous changes in the main space without sharing a single thought on talk page! Such actions are in direct violation of
each and every decision Arbcom made and thus constitute outrageous and utterly unacceptable form of vandalism (harsh, but most appropriate allegation this is!). We are witnessing utter disregard to our policies, utter disregard to the community and utter disregard to the consensus by a single editor. Let me ask you, what sort of place we have here if the free minded editors who act in good faith have to bow and take these sorts of insults, a slap on the face of our whole community this is! I'm expecting immediate response to this issue; there are no words strong enough to condemn actions of this particular user and the complicit silence which follows his/hers unacceptable behavior.
Tachyonbursts (
talk) 00:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
There's no violation of the arbcom decision here. I would advise Tachyonbursts to carefully review Wikipedia's definition of vandalism and its policy on personal attacks. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 01:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
We have a big problem at this article with a tendentious group of editors who have conducted a straw poll and decided that those who believe in fringe theories may write about them as if they are mainstream views. [65] This horrendous POV pushing needs to be stopped, and policies such as WP:UNDUE need to be enforced. There is an arbitration decision, I believe, covering all 9/11-related articles. Jehochman Talk 02:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I've invoked the arbcom decision to ban Thomas from September 11 attacks-related articles. I've noted such on his talk page. Raul654 ( talk) 04:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Here's another long time source of POV pushing on this article. [72] This editor should be subject to the same sanction. Jehochman Talk 12:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I'd ask for consideration of action on this editor as well. His quote sums up his purpose here pretty well: The mainstream account is propaganda created by the Bush regime, repeated verbatim by a captive domestic media, then parroted again by foreign media. [75] Look at this revert [76] "an uncounted, but presumably large number of members of the engineering community"?? Presumably?? Why do we have to put up with this? RxS ( talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Xiutwel ( talk · contribs · count) is another user engaging in tendentious pro-Truther soapboxing and stonewalling. [77] [78] Additionally, they left me a bogus warning, apparently in retaliation for my involvement above. [79] This account proudly declares on their user page that they are here for the purpose of ideological struggle. [80] I suggest either a final warning, topic ban, or indefinite block for disruption, as appropriate in the discretion of the administrator who reviews this request. The time for nonsense on these articles has come and gone. Xiutwel participated in the arbitration case, so they are certainly on notice about what is acceptable, and what isn't. [81] Jehochman Talk 02:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It is painfully obvious that Jehochman is using arbitration enforcement to stiffle different opinions and views he personally disagress with. Jehochman is attempting to silence the contributions all of the editors he is in an edit war with, and involved admins such as Raul654 are silencing these editors, with no warning as the arbitration decisions demands.
Everything that Jehochman claims these users are guilty of he and other "deletionist" editors are guilty of also. I find it very ironic that Haemo writes: [Xiutwel] "convinced himself that he's neutral and everyone else is biased" when Jehochman, Haemo, Ice Cold beer, Aude and other editors here, who have extremely strong biases against alternative views about 9/11, feel that only their views are NPOV. It is clear that Jehochman and the rest of these "deletionists" are also in an " ideological struggle". Jehochman is as guilty of edit warring as these other users. He did not abide by the straw poll which he lost. The blatant hypocricy here of the "deletionists" here boggles the mind.
Xiutwel's, Thomas's, Popsy's and the other conspiracy theorists ideas about 9/11 are silly and have no basis in fact. But a large minority of people agree with these users, and if Wikipedia is truly to have a "neutral point of view" these "conspiracy theorists" sourced views belong on Wikipedia also. Inclusionist ( talk) 04:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Xiutwel ( talk · contribs) has been indefinitely banned from all pages related to 9/11 by Chetblong ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). east.718 at 12:11, April 24, 2008
{{Following in User:67.164.76.73's footsteps (see resolved, below), except he's already done 2 each today on Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center, Jesse Ventura, and Template:911tm.
Has claimed in the past to be User:Bov, who has been warned many times, but not necessarily since the Arbcom.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Can we get an uninvolved admin here for a warning/block (whatever you feel is appropriate at this point). Less than 20 edits and he's called an editor in good standing a vandal (twice) [84], reverted an edit after calling for sanctions on that same editor [85] and this I'd kindly suggest you explain your conduct which I consider to constitute deliberate omission of unacceptable behavior by user Aude. [86]. All in as I say, less than 20 edits. Thanks. RxS ( talk) 02:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
NOTE: The following input might be more difficult to follow than incivility since it's content related. However, it depicts a POV source related problem.
Previously Eleland has,
(a) Rejected Washington Times and the BBC to promote -- alongside
PalestineRemembered (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) -- the
WP:FRINGE theory/blood-libel that
Battle of Jenin was (supposedly) a large scale massacre.
[91],
[92],
[93]
(b) Replaced "partisan-hackery links" (
CAMERA,
AIJAC) with (neutral?)
ElectronicIntifada.net.
[94]
(c) Rejected '
Arutz Sheva', a leading right wing Israeli news outlet for it's (alleged) -
"reputation for producing outright fraudulent "news", calling it a "disreputable racist fringe source".
[95]
(d) He even rejected the word 'documentary' to describe a video only using live-recorded clips of real life situations based on the notion that
"it's full of lies".
[96]
(e) He's also made a similar BLP violation, reinstating a quote made on March 5 into a lead paragraph on
Operation Defensive Shield, an Israeli response to a month of suicide bombings culminating with a March 27th attack;
[97] this after the paragraph/quote context was explained more than once (
[98],
[99]).
In continuation with the previous "rv extremist POV" diff (above) Eleland was also taking part in a WP:GAME team war approach -- following Pedro Gonnet (now Pedrito) and Nickhh -- to creating/supporting BLP violations on Avigdor Lieberman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a right-wing Israeli politician.
I would like your thoughts on whether this comment is in violation of enforcement 1 of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch (found here). henrik• talk 20:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Yes, you're probably right ... it was probably just obnoxious, I probably just over-reacted (Note: I am not being sarcastic, I just think JE is right)
Look, no offense, but as the victim of the attack I object. We don't normally cite or jail victims. •Jim62sch• dissera! 21:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I was about to close this thread, as I have made things clear to both editors here and here, but I see this thread still has legs. On the other hand, Newyorkbrad intervened directly here. I'm not sure if this means the thread should be left open, to allow assessment of Jim's responses, or whether it would be better to close it all now. I would favour the latter, but will let someone else do it if they agree. I will add notes to the case pages later, once the threads are definitely closed. Carcharoth ( talk) 21:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
TTN was blocked for one week today, despite the fact that he has not violated a single term of the restrictions from his arbcom enforcement. "Broadly interpreting" [100] and [101] as substantially amounting to a merge or deletion is a broad interpretation beyond all reason.
Arbcom did not say that TTN couldn't trim bad articles. It did not say that he couldn't discuss deletions on talk pages. It just did not say anything against the things that TTN has actually done. This block should be reversed immediately. Kww ( talk) 17:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Kww is missing the whole point of arbcom and this page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Yes, again a topic about TTN. I believe that this diff and this diff are violations of his probation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#TTN_restricted. I'm more concerned about the first diff. He either needs to be blocked or the arbcom remedy needs to be tweaked, as it says "television character... to be interpreted broadly" which I am lumping video games under due to their similarities and the fact that this problem was evident during the arbitration hearings. Since I took part in the debate I'm not taking any action myself. Wizardman 03:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Indeed. And this keeps coming up here. One week block for TTN. Also see [102]. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
} ScienceApologist ( talk · contribs) I feel that these comments made by ScienceApologist against me (and CorticoSpinal) violate the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist_restricted his ArbCom in that it represents an uncivil personal attack. ScienceApologist and I have had our differences in the past, but we have not crossed paths for at least a month now, making this attack on my character unprovoked (and in my opinion unwarranted). Specifically, I take offense to ScienceApologist describing me as a "Chiropractic true-believer" and my actions as "soapboxing" and my beliefs as "weird", "preposterous" and not "sane". Essentially, he has called me an insane chiropractic true-believer soapboxing preposterous beliefs. Not only is this uncivil, it is also a poor characterization of myself, my beliefs and my actions.
I took a gander at other edits/comments ScienceApologist has made just today and it appears that I am not the only editor he is currently disrespecting in this way. Please consider the following diffs here he also calls editors "anti scientific" and "braindead", etc.: [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] And this is just from today and from a pretty cursory search. I just don't this is acceptable behavior from a recidivist such as ScienceApologist. I understand that he has strong opinions, but he definitely knows better. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Oh give me a break, Levine. Your first diff is merely a statement of support for QuackGuru by SA, it's hardly anything bad. I've got to ask--isn't there something better to do with your time but engage in a regular posting to here about SA? I honestly quit reading what you say about SA and what he says about you 6 months ago. I only came here because I was reviewing something else, and noticed your posting. I don't like your POV, I don't agree with your POV, and i think your POV is off someplace far away from my education, but, in general, I don't think you should engage in these battles, because it makes you look bad. It's beneath you. Engage intellectually, not with this back and forth complaints. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
He's been insulting me all over the place, called me a Hypocrite in a headline a while back, and more stuff just today. Does that count, or is it my fault that he acts the way he does? I mean, it's always been my fault before, right? [109] [110] [111] [112] In addition to the usual edit warring and disruption and POV pushing with terrible sources like blogs or the personal webspace of assistant professors [113] under the veil of PARITY. You excuse all this because he gives fringe POV pushers a hard time? Good for him, but please notice the other stuff. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
By the way, to let people understand that I'm acting in good faith here, please see my talk page where I think civility discussions can be had civilly. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Get real. You all know. I hate to do this, but I know you know, and I even have one diff to prove it [114] Don't be the first and third monkies, because they are not wise. You have completely abdicated your jobs as admins of wikipedia, to preserve the collegial editing environment of this place. Even with an ArbCom sanction behind you, which you should not need. It is absolutely, 100% disgusting, and you should be completely ashamed of yourselves. If you betray Wikipedia like this, why do you edit here at all? Or are you all afraid of Raul? Are you all afraid of JzG? There is a limit beyond which it is also unwise to refrain from speaking of negativity, and you have crossed it. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
OK, I was mad. I think there are admins here genuinely trying to actually do something. And I thank them for at least trying, even if it is months and years of extreme disruption late. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Here's a link for you. And it isn't like this is the only thing. [115] —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Closing comment...enough already. This has descended into a finger-pointing complaint session by both sides. Before writing anything about someone else, ask "Would I want to be called that?". If not, don't write it. If it's borderline don't write it-this would stop all the attempts here where users throw up a report just to see what sticks; only truly legit reports would get filed if this were to occur. For example, maybe you wouldn't mind being called "braindead", but it would offend a lot of people. Also, you (you as in everyone, both sides) may consider your efforts on wiki non-POV, but others may not. If everyone involved here would take a step back, take a deep breath, and admit that the world of wiki is plenty big for everyone, things would be a lot calmer. These types of disputes start and go on and on when no one allows room for the other side. I see this not only in the pseudoscience area, but Mid-East, East Europe, Sri Lanka, etc disputes. On top of all this, there's about disagreement about the civility here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
User RodentofDeath, who is banned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RodentofDeath and has previous violations for breaching his ban has returned using a well laid out sockpuppet plan of attack using two sockpupputs.
Banned User RodentofDeath seems to have reapperared in breach of his ban once again, this time using various sockpuppets in a well laid out sockpuppet attatck against the same articles as before his ban, as well as his usual attacks and complaints against me. RodentofDeath has already twice been caught out breaching his ban before. He has reapperared using two sockpuppets. the first is user: HurryTaken. When one takes a look at the posting he first appears on March 8 with his first post in a deletion talk on an article that Rodent was strongely involved in. After a few minor posts, he then starts launching attacks against me in his usual style in the discussion area of another article Rodent was involved in.... http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Human_trafficking_in_the_Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=208509828
His last Eleven posts have all been attacks against me. This sockpuppet has been editing the same articles RodentofDeath did in the exact same manner. Removing anything I have posted and anything referring to human traficking in Angeles, which has been the single purpose of the RodentofDeath account. — Susanbryce — continues after insertion below
It should be noted that the user has also been busy posting complaints againstr me to administrators, a usual tactic of RodentofDeath.... http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=208504240 — Susanbryce — continues after insertion below
The other sockpuppet RodentofDeath is using in this plan is user : Luzonman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Luzonman
This sockpuppet was activated just several days after the other sockpuppet. It has also soon started editing the same articles RodentofDeath did in the exact same manner. Removing anything I have posted and anything referring to human traficking in Angeles, which has been the single purpose of the RodentofDeath account. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Charities_in_the_Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=208497245
Also, both sockpuppets appear to be posting immediatly after each other. example: (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Human trafficking in the Philippines?; 12:07 . . (+322) . . HurryTaken (Talk | contribs) (?Line that makes no sense: added link to article and edit.)
(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Human trafficking in the Philippines?; 11:39 . . (+1,009) . . HurryTaken (Talk | contribs) (?Line that makes no sense)
(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Human trafficking in the Philippines?; 10:51 . . (+1,308) . . HurryTaken (Talk | contribs) (?Line that makes no sense)
(diff) (hist) . . Charities in the Philippines?; 10:23 . . (-172) . . Luzonman (Talk | contribs) (?ReachOut Foundation International: clarify charity's mission as per their website.)
(diff) (hist) . . Charities in the Philippines?; 10:17 . . (+123) . . Luzonman (Talk | contribs) (?SOS Children's Villages in the Philippines: clarify charity as in cited material.)
(diff) (hist) . . Charities in the Philippines?; 10:08 . . (-91) . . Luzonman (Talk | contribs) (?Sisters Plus: change to info stated in citation.)
(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Human trafficking in the Philippines?; 09:05 . . (+91) . . HurryTaken (Talk | contribs) (?Sex Tourism: Forgot to sign)
(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Human trafficking in the Philippines?; 09:04 . . (+1,973) . . HurryTaken (Talk | contribs)
It appears RodentofDeath has no regard for the ban or rules. He is engaging in any way possible to curcumvent that ban. Susanbryce ( talk) 02:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
He has added text in the middle of my text, can this matter be tidied up? Once again, typical RodentofDeath behaviour as he has done this often before. Susanbryce ( talk) 04:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The RFCU was inconclusive. I would tend to assume good faith and assume these editors are not SPs of Rodent. What we need to monitor is disruption, by all parties to the dispute. I would suggest we keep these articles in our watchlists for a few weeks and encourage editos to follow dispute resolution if they get stuck. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I concur with Edgarde on this. HurryTaken's edit history is that of RodentofDeath. If we fail to take action against this sockpuppet, it will only make matters worse and embolden RodentofDeath to set up more sockpuppets. It may be that Luzonman is not a sock, but a genuine editor. But HurryTaken is RodentofDeath 100%. Susanbryce ( talk) 16:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It is a very interesting situation. Edg says that my comments on this page are consistent with Rodent. Are they? Our subject interest may be. But I would argue our actions and the way we handle bringing up difference of opinions are quite different. I also believe our writing styles and grammar are quite different. Am I faking this? Is this learned behavior? Again, our subject concerns are indeed similar. And the issues I raise may be issue he raised. But again, does that mean that I am him? Would it have been wiser for me to sign up for an account the entire time I sat on the sidelines and watched the previous situation unfold? Lar even noted the issues I have brought up have some merit in the RFCU. So I again submit that a portion of this seems to be to stifle or silence views, opinions, thoughts or contributions that don't fall in line with the editor that submitted this AE. Edg has long been a supporter of this editor. As Thatcher pointed out, I cannot prove my innocence based on the IP's I happen to come from. This is what it is and I cannot control it. Perhaps only established editors may contribute to and raise issues with these articles. My question then becomes how can I prove that I am not Rodent? In what ways can I convince those that would judge me and decide my fate here on Wikipedia that I am not him? I have my IP's which I cannot control. I have my written words and counterpoints that I would put forward to hopefully convince others that I am not him. But what else can I do? Can I make a pledge to only bring up issues and concerns I have on the talk pages and not edit articles this editor is involved in? (Which is actually what I intended to do all along.) I never planned on editing any articles this editor was involved in. I already firmly believe this editor has a strong emotional involvement and attachment to all the articles they edit here. Perhaps that is good and perhaps that is also a little bad. But it does bring up some legitimate POV concerns. Rather, my approach was to bring up issues and concerns and edit by consensus. On the [ talk page] for the Human Trafficking in Philippines article I bring up what I consider to be a very legitimate point. According to a 2004 source in that article, 300,000 Japaneses sex tourists visit the Philippines each year. However, according to the Philippines own official numbers, 322,896 Japanese tourists visited the Philippines in 2003. That means that 93% of all Japanese visitors to the Philippines are sex tourists. I think that source and issue needs to be discussed because those two numbers contradict themselves severely. I believe a lot of other articles have significant issues as well. I would like the opportunity to bring up those issues for discussion. This is something Rodent never did. He name called, edit warred, attacked. This is something I have not done and would never do. Again, according to Edg lessons learned. But a lose-lose situation for me. I have an interest in a subject Rodent had. I signed up after Rodent was banned. I must be him. Again, how can I prove I am not? HurryTaken ( talk) 03:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Is this user a ban evading sock? Jehochman Talk 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I asked for a checkuser last night. Came back unrelated. Must say I'm still uneasy. Be aware that in this particular dispute spoofing/joe jobbing has also been a significant possibility. Durova Charge! 14:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
FWIW (really short summary here because I've gotta run), during last month's AE thread User:Benjiboi and User:Eleemosynary got trolled on their talk pages by an AOL IP address. Then very shortly afterward they got friendly follow-ups by a sock that acted like User:Pwok. Looked like Matt had trolled them, only Matt was in France and couldn't have accessed AOL, and when I contacted him he didn't know anything about it (I still have the chat log; he acted genuinely surprised). So that looks like a joe job. Add to substantiate Matt's claim to having been in France at that time:
So the AOL IP trolling from a month ago was probably Pwok and the French IP trolling from a month ago was definitely Matt. Is that murky enough for you? I had a hard talk with Matt afterward. He pledged to cease the trolling on-wiki. And although I'll be unavailable most of today I'm very interested in the results of the investigation and checkuser. Durova Charge! 15:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Would someone else please look at this. I have again rolled back Brianlandeche's edits to Matt Sanchez. He denies editing by proxy, but has admitted above that Sanchez asked him to look at the article. Horologium and I could use some additional eyes here. Aleta Sing 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply