Another addition to the fine Armenia/Azerbaijan fight.
Zinvats uzher (
talk ·
contribs) has made insulting edit summaries (
[1]), shows blatant nationalism, has shown no interest in participating on talk pages, and is generally poisoning any possibility of coming to a consensus on the very issues he's pushing for. I'm not too familiar with the AE process, so I leave this to others, so let me know if I did this wrong, but I just wanted to throw him up here, because I can only see him getting worse. --
Golbez (
talk) 23:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
Relevant discussion at | → WP:ANI#We ned some eyes here (archived) |
A case was filed on wp:ani regarding user:DreamGuy, where another editor brought to my attention a list of actions which are in direct breach of the decision and ruling from arbcom, DreamGuy is subject to a behavioral editing restriction. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below is taken directly from the arbcom case page:
Along with the numerous other breaches of condition, and this extremely long block log, I am reccomending an indefinite block until DreamGuy agrees to follow the arbcom's decision. Chafford ( talk) 21:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Last time Arcayne brought a complaint here (same guy who raised the complaint this time on ANI), it was closed without action because it was decided that Arcayne and others were purposefully being incivil, etc. in an effort to incite me to lash out so they could have a reason to try to get me banned. User:PHG said the people complaining had worse histories of incivility than I did. User:Gatoclass went so far as to call the behavior of some of them as harassment. It's frankly getting tiring to have the same people make the same false accusations -- and this time the thread about this at ANI details some pretty disturbing edits by Arcayne (erasing the article talk page, blind reverting some ten edits of mine with the claim that no discussion was on the talk page, etc.) Besides just dismissing this, I would like suggestions on how to get this kind of behavior against me to end. The Jack the Ripper article is still essentially controlled by an editor who reverts each and every change I make no matter what it consists of -- spelling, providing sources, etc. and this has been going on for about a year. DreamGuy ( talk) 22:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I hereby request a topic ban for Levine2112 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from all pseudoscience/alt med. related articles per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions. We have had multiple users say he is disruptive. Recently, he has made false claims of consensus at Talk:Atropa belladonna, mischaracterized discussions, and generally has all the features of a civil POV-pusher who is tendentious and disruptive to the project. We have an entire library of how awful he is available here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Levine2112. NO administrator has taken it upon themselves to fix this problems with this user. Please help. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I agree with GRBerry here. There are legit concerns on both sides. If we topic ban one, we should topic ban both users. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Hi, just a note: ScienceApologist called me a wackjob conspirancy theorist and lunatic, which I believe calls for some sort of Arb enforcement -- although I might be wrong. I don't think a short block will do much good, and I'm not exactly hurt, but someone else might have been hurt by those words. Perhaps it is skirts civility to say it, but I've said before that ScienceApologist seems to pursue edit-warring. I suggested on the atropa belladonna page that he try a different approach: open up a RfC to gauge consensus; if he can get a reasonable consensus to remove the single sentence mentioning homeopathy, then nobody will object to taking it out. If he can't, then he should leave it be. I started a section for that question, but no one has responded yet. (My take is that if 2 clinical trials in mainstream journals have been done, it seems reasonable to give it a sentence.) II | ( t - c) 20:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm filing this report myself regarding statements made by User:Xasha against User:Olahus because the latter is now blocked for revert-warring and wiki-stalking, and because the statements made by Xasha merit the enforcers' attention.
The two statements in question are here ("I'll revert any edit that calls a Nazi invasion 'liberation'") and here ("Wtf man, every edit made by me is blindly reverted by Olahus (he doesn't even care that he introduces Nazi apologia in the process).") (Note too the incivility there.)
For those who may not be aware, what we are discussing is the Romanian advance into Bessarabia (roughly equivalent to today's Moldova) in summer 1941. The province had joined Romania in 1918 before the Soviet Union forced its cession in June 1940. A year of Stalinist terror followed, and Romanians there naturally greeted the return of their army with relief and a sense of being liberated.
Without passing judgment on the liberation/occupation issue, and without seeking to trivialize the crimes committed by the Romanian Army in the period following June 1941, permit me to state that this is an egregious accusation by Xasha, who has a history of comparing opinions he dislikes to "Nazism". First, it was not a "Nazi invasion" but a Romanian operation, something Xasha likely knows well. Second, and even more damning, Xasha accuses Olahus of "Nazi apologia". Unfortunately for Xasha, the Romanian press (and I mean serious, mainstream organs) routinely refers to this event as a liberation, and no one accuses it of Nazi apologia (remember, it was the Romanian Army that went in, not the German). Examples: from Ziua last month - [3] " Voronin's Communists Lament Bessarabia's Temporary Liberation from beneath the Bolshevik Yoke." From Memoria - [4] "the liberation of Bessarabia by the Romanian Army...they were able to return to Chişinău after its liberation." From Jurnalul Naţional - [5] "...a military administration in the provinces liberated in summer 1941." From Gardianul - [6] "On 22 June 1941 the Romanian Army crossed the Prut to liberate Bessarabia." And, from the Romanian Army's own newspaper - [7] "...the anti-Soviet war for the liberation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina..."
Now, why does all this matter? Well, first, Olahus was clearly not describing a "Nazi invasion" as a "liberation". And second, he was not expressing "Nazi apologia" but a mainstream viewpoint. Xasha is attempting to discredit him, to silence him by raising the spectre of Nazi sympathies. Unfortunately for him, the Digwuren case is very clear: "All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee." Given Xasha's expanding block log, including two blocks under the Digwuren case, I trust the Committee will take appropriate action. Biruitorul Talk 23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply
1. Sure there was German participation, but dismissing it as an "abominable Nazi invasion" is a distortion of the facts that serves to discredit Olahus' views as unacceptably tainted by Nazi sympathies - which is clearly not the case (see the Romanian press quotes). 2. That some greeted the Soviets in 1940/44 is immaterial to the discussion - the fact remains that Romanians, who had just been through a year of Stalinist terror (and calling my description of it as such a "nationalist rant" will not diminish its horror by one iota), were heavily targeted, if not explicitly because of their ethnicity, then because they were the dominant ethnic group, and dominant among the classes the Soviets were targeting. And that they did in fact greet the returning Romanians as liberators, which many Romanians still consider them to have been. 3. You need not assume good faith on every aspect of Olahus' conduct, but you don't go around accusing him of defending a "Nazi invasion" and introducing "Nazi apologia", unless he places a swastika on his user page. You don't link people to Nazism, whatever you may privately think their motivations are. You, however, have chosen to do that, and Digwuren is clear on the consequences. But even if that is not the case, one only has to look at its very next section: "should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." Linking someone to Nazi sympathies in the absence of explicit declarations he is one is uncivil, a personal attack, an assumption of bad faith. Either way, you have violated the restriction and I trust the enforcers will act accordingly. Biruitorul Talk 02:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I agree with FutPerf except I want to clarify we can't ignore the incivility. Plus this is getting really old. Maybe topic bans are in order all around? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Any opposition to topic bans for Olahus and Xasha, banning them from Romanian-related articles, broadly interpreted? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Okay, let's go for it. The topic should be "all edits touching on the historical and ethnic relation between Moldova and Romania", I'd say. No problem if they want to write articles on, say, Romanian or Moldovan towns, villages or rivers. But they'd better not then get into a naming dispute where Romanian or Moldovan preferences are at stake. – Also, should the ban cover talk page discussions? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Things you dislike or disagree with aren't necessarily egregious personal attacks. ArbCom cases don't mean that we hunt people down and ding them for every comment we don't like. Shell babelfish 23:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
this SSP report consists of nothing but diffs from months ago, , and much of the verbiage employed by ScienceApologist is clearly in violation of his ArbCom restrictions against assumptions of bad faith. For example: repeatedly calling me obsessed, (and even using this insult as a taunt). Accusing me of wiki-stalking and using the same diffs that he was previously told did not indicate wikistalking. In fact the report in its entirety looks to me to be a violation of his restrictions and an abuse of process. Look at his mischaracterizations of the diffs he provided - he even describes my response to a Request for Comments as 'wikistalking'. I do not wish to have to endure his unfounded attacks in the future. If in the judgement of the reviewing admins, this incident does not rise to a level where sanctions need be imposed, I ask at least that SA be warned against such activity in the future. Dlabtot ( talk) 23:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I believe that Rumiton has shown a pattern of incivility and personal attacks towards me, particularly in the last several postings. He has consistently failed to assume good faith on my part. The comments above are all since the close of the ArbCom case on May 14. He has been notified of the ArbCom-imposed probation, [20], the probation notices appear on talk pages, and I have asked him to retract his remarks and stop making new ones. [21] [22] [23] His last two comments above are his most recent responses, and they indicate his intent to continue making similar remarks. These comments, all directed at me personally, create an "atmosphere of conflict and stress" and are disruptive. I request that an uninvolved admin enforce the ArbCom's remedy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Parishan ( talk · contribs) has been constantly resorting to incivility on Talk:Blue Mosque, Yerevan. Instead of discussing the disputed topics in question he resorts to making not so civil remarks on users he calls "opponents" (Wikipedia is not a battleground). Comments such as: "Astounding! :) People have no flipping idea whatsoever of what they are talking about, yet they choose to go on with their... agenda thinking they are experts in the field. Without hurting your feelings, neither of you realises how ridiculous this looks." or ". I would appreciate it if you refrained from wasting both of us's time on your baseless original-research speculations emerging from your appaulingly poor knowledge of the structure of Turkic languages. Manipulation-schmanipulation. The cobbler should stick to his last." (both found here: [24]). I had asked him to tone it down on July 5 but just yesterday he continued with: "...with your asinine original-research speculations" [25]. Webster defines asinine as: 1 : extremely or utterly foolish <an asinine excuse 2 : of, relating to, or resembling an ass . At the very least this warrants a warning per the discretionary sanctions clause of AA2.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 22:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I've left a note on his talk page. Didn't place him on the restrictions since Parishan is largely a constructive contributor, but I warned him that he could be placed on said restrictions if he continues to make similar comments. Khoi khoi 04:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Small Text reply
VMORO ( talk · contribs), recently returned from a longer absence, is a persistent Bulgarian POV warrior. He was recently blocked for 3RR on Maleševo-Pirin dialect, where he has been pushing for a WP:OR synthesis promoting his preferred national opinion (regarding linguistic delimitations within the Bulgarian-Macedonian dialect continuum) against the reliable sources, using falsified references in turn. He is now back from the block and continues a sterile revert war, with two more reverts in two days immediately after the block, and promising that he will continue forever ( [26]). This is a dyed-in-the-wool, hardened and skilled POV warrior who has never done anything else on Wikipedia. Please treat under WP:ARBMAC. (Note: I'm "involved"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Yada, yada, yada, this is sooo boring...oh, and a block would be punitive now. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 17:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley#Temporary_injunction, Giano II can only be blocked with the consent of an ArbCom member, so I'd like somebody to take a look at diff 1 where Giano calls Chillum a "useless twit" and diff 2 where Giano tells MZMcBride to "stop stirring and trolling and get lost". As I understand it, the civility ruling under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC isn't officially suspended until the current case passes. ArbCom member Jpgordon ( talk · contribs) advised me to file here. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 21:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: editors are entitled to seek the same standard from Giano as they probably would from any other person with a history of rudeness and a civility sanction. Being gratuitously rude isn't heroic, nor praiseworthy, and it's not made okay by discussing what other people might have done. My own view on the harm caused to the project by bad social manners is elsewhere on the wiki. It applies as much for Giano as for any other person who is under a civility sanction. In that sense my view is completely impersonal. It could as easily be one person as another being discussed here. The decision made is that the incivility should end, and I'm not inclined to read into it, "but not if you are this special person or that one".
Geogre, Tex - if (as counter-argued) Chillum was out of line, then you discuss with Chillum, and if necessary you raise Chillum's conduct as appropriate. You do not use it as an excuse to dismiss issues of bad conduct by others.
Sarah - as Giano's been told on numerous occasions, it is his conduct to other users that is the issue, not his views per se. He has zero trouble whenever he speaks in a reasonable manner, and he hits problems when he decides his view on how he should be allowed to speak of others is sacrosanct. It isn't. People don't end up with civility sanctions for no reason, in fact they are not that heavily used, and only in cases of repeated well evidenced rudeness to others, brought to arbitration usually by other users in the community and evaluated by their peers elected to that role. It's not perfect (what is) but it is what we have. If you feel a better way exists, that the community would endorse more than the civility norm, then I urge you to develop the idea and propose it so we can use it. But until then, Wikipedia:Civility is what we have, and communally agree to, even if individually some don't agree.
Giano - you don't moon the jury. You come repeatedly to arbitration with a past record of incivility, and (in this case) a protective measure to prevent others picking on you for no good reason. Your response is while this case is being looked at, to head off and insult two more users. Not huge insults, it's true - worse get ignored - but you are also an incorrigible envelope pusher on this and I don't feel inclined to indulge envelope pushing under a sanction. If someone else were under a sanction, I would take that seriously too. You could have easily discussed the issue, rather than insult the person ("useless twits" adds nothing). Or you could have completely avoided presuming to speak for all "contributing editors" of the project, which you don't. This was uncivil, and you knew it. FT2 ( Talk | email) 02:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Do you care what Giano thinks of you? If not, then who cares if he calls you a "useless twit"? I have no idea if Giano would consider me a useless twit, or a "foolish and stupid person", etc, and I don't really care. Giano believes (and I happen to agree) that his civility parole is a joke, and he's currently endeavoring to prove that point. This behavior is, at bottom, attention-seeking. Giano gets much more attention for his shit-stirring than he does for his stellar article-writing. The solution is to ignore the shit-stirring and reward the article writing with positive feedback. Civility parole gets this equation back-asswards, and the results were and are predictable. I'm doing what I can to change the situation by refusing to enforce this, or any, civility parole. Other admins are welcome to do as they see fit, assuming they can parse FT2's statement and figure out whether he "consented" to a block per the injunction. MastCell Talk 03:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Thanks all of you for the support, however, but by talking to those fronting "Chillum's" latest attempt to get rid of me, and bring attention to himself, you are also encouraging FT2, to comment further. He knows, as do the Arbcom, I do not like him even mentioning my name. Such is my extreme distaste for him. However, as he yet again attacks me and seizes, saliva dripping, this opportunity to attack me, I feel forced to respond, if only for the sake's of any new editors who may not know of him. As Bishonen says above, if he had one scrap of honour or dignity he would not be o this page at all. Most people see straight through him so I suppose it matters not. In his way, he is every bit as bad as the editor currently known as "Chillum," who having posted his lurid and vulgar insinuation for the titillation of his pathetic friends on IRC#admins, immediately ran to them bleating bleating when he got his well deserved punch on the nose. He did this in an attempt to repeat the previous block of me which he orchestrated on IRC#admins by User:Kwsn (The same #admins that FT2 assures us is properly regulated etc. etc. etc.) Following that block, FT2 even had the gall to use my having some edits oversighted oversighted to protect an IRC Admin, (member an Admin with oversight had to agree with me) as a pretext to attack me further. He truly is a person with no honour or scruples. I have no doubt he will come back here with some verbose diatribe, but the problem is now that every time the Arbcom drag me into one of their instantaneously accepted cases built on thin air and hope, they are more and more damaged. Every time FT2 open his mouth they are even more damaged. Everyone with half a brain now sees straight through them - and have they yet addressed the IRC problem? (hat they promised us all they would) No, of course not. Why? ....Because it is owned by one of their number, and they probably feel it is the only place that gives them the support to keep them where they are. In that respect, I dare say they are for once quite correct. Giano ( talk) 13:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply
An observation: Isn't it amazing how when an opportunity to have me blocked is presented or a kangaroo arbitration case held how quickly these things can be opened, but the second they appear to be failing to go in the required direction, they can be speedily archived and shunted off out of sight [28] truly amazing indeed. Wikipedia gets more like a third world junta every day. The arbcom and their IRC friends can't keep hiding the truth for ever. Giano ( talk) 18:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply
On a request for clarification concerning this case - Tenebrae made the following comment - http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=228528545&oldid=228526664
I object to the incivility i.e. calling my edits 'hagiography', 'obssessive', plus various exagerrated claims -in general implying that I'm some sort of unbalanced fan with little capacity for critical thinking who is desperately trying to force innapropriate material on wikipedia - (this is not the case,I say, for anyone who may be inclined to believe his claims, if I wanted to do a personal web site on the artist, I would do so, there are plenty of resources for this besides Wikipedia). The reason I'm pursuing this consistently is because the discrediting has been going on a long time and I would like it to stop i.e. if one disagrees with an edit, why not simply describe what one objects about in terms of content, rather than making personal assumptions about the editor.
-- Scott Free ( talk) 05:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Before taking such mesures, I'd like to request waiting for the arbitration clarification request to finish, as the result of that could give added insight to the situation.
-- Scott Free ( talk) 14:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
A case reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Lysy_making_manual_copy.2Fedit_moves seems to fall in the scope of the Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. Two loosely related incidents are mentioned, both involving Polish users trying to enforce unsourced pseudo-English names on articles which should have sourced common English names which are similar to the German one:
Matthead Discuß 15:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I go with Martintg (something of a first) and Piotrus on this one. Matthead, please don't go fishing for blocks with absolutely zero evidence of anyone having done much wrong at all. Particularly when normal editing processes seem to have resolved the dispute anyway. Please treat this as a very final warning. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 16:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I was invited to comment here by Piotrus. Regarding the Battle of Annaberg, Matthead and I objected to the original title of "Battle of Saint Anne's Mountain" since it is not terminology used in English for that event. Neither Matthead nor Piotrus are without blame in that incident. Matthead could have been a little more patient with the talk page discussion before moving pages, while Piotrus had reverted to a name without any English-language support. We achieved a consensus to move the page from the original title after more editors (myself and the article creator) chimed in.
The Kulmerland case is murky. Unlike the clear (in my eyes) Annaberg case, the territory in question is not universally known by a single name (witness Kulmerland, Culmerland, Kulm Land, Culm Land, Chelmno Land, Chełmno Land, etc.). Many of the relevant English-language history books that I have use variations of the German spelling (Urban, Turnbull, Friedrich, Barraclough), although the Polish spelling is sometimes used (Christiansen, and as alternatives in the others). Matthead wanted to move the article to Kulmerland and listed his rationale on the talk page; Piotrus suggested WP:RM, which Matthead rejected. After there was no further input for a few months, Matthead moved the article from "Chełmno Land" to "Kulmerland". Emulating the edits of Piotrus on other pages, Matthead then added a redirect template to the Chełmno Land redirect; Matthead had previously objected to Piotrus' use of this additions. Although there is nothing "wrong" with the addition of a redirect template, they can also be used to prevent a revert move. Because of this inability to rever the move, Lysy used a cut-and-paste move to restore the article to Chełmno Land, an action which is not kosher. Considering the frustration and accusations of bad faith regarding redirect templates that have been tossed about, my suggestion is that Matthead and Piotrus cease the usage of them.
Although I understand his frustration, I would like to register my disappointment with Lysy's going on leave again. Although our backgrounds are different, I have often found him to be one of the more neutral and thoughtful editors on tendentious topics. Olessi ( talk) 22:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Hi. I was recently called a "wacko conspiracy theorist lunatic" by ScienceApologist (
diff) because I've pointed out that there is a current controversy over the fluoridation of water, as evidenced by, among other things, a 2000 BMJ systematic review which was ""unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide".
[42], and the research covered by a 2006 National Research Council study, which noted studies suggesting that fluoridation increases the leaching of lead and Chinese epidemiological studies inversely correlating fluoride with IQ.
[43] In 2007 SciAm ran an article where it said expert opinion may be changing.
[44] Anyway, today SA told me "[e]xpert opinion may be changing on whether tinfoil hats can protect you from those mind-control beams too" (
diff). He's made the rather
pointy move of renaming the old water fluoridation opposition article to
water fluoridation conspiracy theory, despite the fact that the article has nothing about conspiracy theories, and cut it from 34k to 11k. I don't want to engage in an edit-war, but there's clearly some heavy POV pushing going on here.
II | (
t -
c) 21:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
<-- I am saddened that so many folks have provided clues to SA, but SA still does not moderate his rhetoric. Perhaps we should request a revised sanction. Blocks have not stopped the disruption. SA related disputes occupy far too much attention on this board. Maybe somebody can propose something better. Jehochman Talk 23:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Sigh. Short blocks don't appear to work to get SA to stop being incivil. Asking him to refactor isn't going to work - the disruption has already occurred. Is there any way of restricting him so that someone else has to filter his comments before they get made visible? (The reverse of the flappers of Gulliver's Travels.) I'd be shocked if there is a way to do that. I see three remaining options for dealing with this disruption - long term blocks, long term topic bans, and punting it back to ArbComm. ArbComm is clearly struggling about incivility in both of the related open cases right now, so who knows what would happen if we punted back. I hope somebody else has a good idea here; do nothing appears to be the worst of all possible solutions but I can't see any real reason to favor any of the possible solutions over any other. (Edit warring is so much easier to deal with...) GRBerry 02:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
i don't quite understand why an editor is removing warning template from another editors page, and in the same time threatening me with a block.
User:ScienceApologist removed A LOT of sourced content from water fluoridation opposition article.
I placed a tag on SA's page, and it was removed with a 'harassment' accusation from User:Jehochman.
216.80.119.92 ( talk) 05:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I am very tired of this little game where a gang of single-purpose, POV pushing accounts politely bait and goad ScienceApologist until he loses his cool and violates decorum. That is not what Wikipedia is about. We should be trying to help each other, not setting traps and then running to WP:AE and WP:ANI to get other users banned. The current restrictions on SA seem to exacerbate the problem by encouraging polite trolling. I think we need to revisit these sanctions and come up with a better plan. For instance, we should take a dim view of editors in a content dispute with SA who seek to use this board for tactical advantage. SA for his part needs to maintain decorum, or stay out of the "hot zone". Should that prove impossible, the Wikipedia community will have to impose external restrictions. I note that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions has recently (July 28, 2008) provided a new tool for administrators to control disruption. Perhaps the careful application of discretionary sanctions on SA and those who are trolling SA would help resolve the matter. Thoughts by uninvolved parties would be especially appreciated. Jehochman Talk 11:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
What POV is the "the set of POV pushers to which SA belongs" pushing? Pro-science? Pro-reason? ScienceApologist is brave enough to enter articles like homeopathy and this, and for it, he ends up with a witch-hunting mob, trying to go after him. The fluoridation article was a clear case of WP:SYNTH being used to support a conspiracy theory. He wiped it clean and that upset the folks there. Well, sorry. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 17:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Jehochman asked for uninvolved editors to comment. I haven't seen anyone comment yet that hasn't previously been involved in a dispute against ScienceApologist, or on his side in a dispute. I'm involved too, and have my opinions, but I'd actually like to see what uninvolved editors have to say about it. I'm curious. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 20:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Excellent points are raised by Elonka and GRBerry above. I agree that an indefinite restriction on SA may make sense, until they change their ways. Perhaps a topic ban from the locus of dispute would be a reasonable first step before going to an indefinite block. SA might learn to edit better outside the "hot zone" and eventually be able to return and edit successfully. I agree with GRBerry that baiting on all sides needs to be stopped. I see two levels of problems here:
It seems like we are moving toward some common ground. Who else, not involved in the content dispute, can provide views? Jehochman Talk 23:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Strong measures in this topic area are long overdue. The baiting, POV pushing, gaming, incivility, edit warring, etc and so on BY BOTH SIDES needs to stop now. Since short blocks haven't worked, we need long blocks, topic bans on the range of pertinent articles, full protection of the articles, etc. Hopefully that will work. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
See also: WP:ANI#Edit war over Water fluoridation opposition. seicer | talk | contribs 17:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I've noticed a consistent theme among those who've called for SA's actions to be excused once again - they keep claiming that people are 'baiting' him. I'd like to remind everyone of two things:
User:Shot info removed comment from banned user. making my comment below irrelevant. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 06:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The Dakval socks that keep on popping up here are good evidence of baiting, harassment, whatever you want to call it. Of course, it's quite possible that SA is baited/harassed and he engages in unjustifiable conduct. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I think a good strategy is to dig down through all the layers of misdeed and start by sanctioning the initiator to make sure they don't set off further disruptions. If that does not resolve the problem of improper responses to improper behavior, then the next layer up can be sanctioned, and so on. We want to minimize the use of force while solving the problem as thoroughly as possible. In this case, the first thing to do is figure out who is violating core content policies and stop them. If there is residual disruption (not mere incivility), then additional sanctions can be employed. So, my tools are ready. Diffs please, who made the first bad edits in the current dispute? Jehochman Talk 16:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm of the opinion that this trainwreck of a conversation doesn't deserve my comment, but since Jehochman has asked me to reply specifically about what I think about his "remedy", I'll give it a shot.
All I'm trying to do is make this encyclopedia better, and the usual suspects are whining about an action that happened 10 days ago brought to the attention of this board by a cadre of editors who should have been banned a long time ago. Oh, and a particular administrator who loves to cherry-pick and editorialize diffs in order to demonstrate his hatred for me.
The claim: moving a page was disrupticve. The rebuttal: WP:BOLD, WP:BRD. For fucksake, the page was moved back, and I didn't force the issue at all. If you think moving a page is disruptive, then you obviously don't think editors should ever be bold. My move log indicates dozens of successful bold moves including a number of fringe topics moved to pages that are currently named "conspiracy theories" ( Apollo moon landing hoax conspiracy theories for example). In this case, there is still outlying discussion as to whether this issue is wholly conspiracy theory or not. To ban me from all pseudoscience-related pages (whatever that's supposed to mean) for moving a page about water fluoridation opposition to a new location called water fluoridation conspiracy theory would be really bizarre and almost comical.
One thing we might ask is why the administrators think I was being disruptive. Certainly there are users who complained very loudly about the move with varying degrees of evinced intelligence. But does that indicate disruption? When a user who is single-purposely dedicated to destroying Wikipedia's weighting of fringe theories, should we be worried when they complain loudly about not being able to get their agenda accomplished? Should we allow them the latitude to call the people they hate :trolls" (as is seen directly above) while extolling the virtues of civility and no personal attacks to those on the other side?
I submit that such users would be better served with time-off then myself, especially in light of the fact that Dana Ullman was banned from homeopathy related pages. Precedent by arbcomm is that fringe-POV-pushers are to be banned from articles. That's the real precedent here. It is very interesting that no administrator wants to ban the problematic users who defiantly act contrary to WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Is it because they're afraid? Yes. There are, in fact, administrators who are active in this very thread who have e-mailed me to say, essentially, that I'm right but there is nothing that can be done because they are too scared to act lest certain other administrators declare massive-multiplayer war.
POV-pushing fringe proponets should be told to move along as their contributions to Wikipedia only serve to cause problems for the project. Ask yourself the question, are the Wikipedia articles I've been involved with in better shape now than they were when I started? Do the experiment and see. I've yet to see anyone point out a case where an article degraded because I became involved in it. In contrast, I can point to articles where my opponents have made articles much worse. So, what's it going to be? Are you going to say that people who make articles better are the ones that should be banned first?
ScienceApologist ( talk) 05:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC) reply
SA MO/System is to WP:POVPUSH:, he bates by running down editors - for example WP:FTN: then move to WP:POVN: [55] Atropa belladonna - see the bates;
Another SA MO/System is the Mass Delete of sources. This sudden event bates the other editors into war, he then moves on.
User:AGK has generously offered his time to mentor User:ScienceApologist, who has agreed to mentorship. Hopefully this will lead to a long term improvement in the situation. I have asked SA to back away from all disputes and concentrate on article improvement. Jehochman Talk 07:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply
It has been established that Gretab ( talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet closely linked to the "Musikfabrik" circus described in the above AC case. This sock has been used to evade the remedies of the case and to harass editors with further abusive socking. Accordingly, I have blocked it indefinitely. Congrats to Paul on pulling the wool over my eyes for so long. For a self-proclaimed feminist, your lies about being a woman with a history of being stalked online are especially sickening. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 09:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Someone from IP address 69.2.248.210 has been editting the Jeff Merkey biography, adding a lot of self-promotional material, poorly=sourced material, and claiming harassment when questioned about the editor's identity and/or motives.
Jeff Merkey was banned for 1 year by ArbCom in July 2007, and his ban was reset in April 2008 for ban evasion from an IP address which could be definitely linked to him. [65]. When multiple editors posted tracert logs that showed a hostname that contained 'jmerkey' in the route to 166.70.235.40, the posts were quickly removed by that ip address with the edit comment 'this is harassment.'
So, when User:69.2.248.210 showed up and began adding unbalanced information to the Jeff Merkey biography, an admin logged a suspected sock puppet page and a checkuser request. Observe the history of the user page for that IP address, and note that as soon as the page was unprotected, the ip address deleted the sockpuppet notice with the claim that he was being harassed. [66].
Highly circumstantial, but observe that this editor is very concerned with Merkey's cherokee ancestry, going so far as to claim that his mother's name Archer (AreCherokee) indicates his cherokee heritage. [67]. That sounds like Merkey, not an anonymous 3rd party.
As of the time of the edits, Merkey worked at Calculated Research, the owner of the IP in question. The anonymous IP's claim that he is a "low level engineer" doesn't pass the sniff test. This is Merkey's new anonymous ip address to make POV edits ('remove stuff about jimho, we all know it's true'), self-serving BLP edits, violations of 3RR (see block log for the IP), and evade his arbcom ban.
Request Merkey's ban be reset, if not made permanent for repeated evasion. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.84.2 ( talk) 14:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply
"or he's someone who has stalked Jeff Merkey with so much detail as to know the names of his two kids from a previous marriage" . Ahem ... I never knew Merkey was previously married not do I know which kids are from a previous marriage and which are not (which you seem to know). So who is stalking whom here? Merkey does not work here at CR&T and never has. I got the information from the Lindon 10th Ward Directory which is public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.248.210 ( talk) 21:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC) and I really object to being accused of "stalking" Merkey just because I edited his article. reply
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Another addition to the fine Armenia/Azerbaijan fight.
Zinvats uzher (
talk ·
contribs) has made insulting edit summaries (
[1]), shows blatant nationalism, has shown no interest in participating on talk pages, and is generally poisoning any possibility of coming to a consensus on the very issues he's pushing for. I'm not too familiar with the AE process, so I leave this to others, so let me know if I did this wrong, but I just wanted to throw him up here, because I can only see him getting worse. --
Golbez (
talk) 23:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
Relevant discussion at | → WP:ANI#We ned some eyes here (archived) |
A case was filed on wp:ani regarding user:DreamGuy, where another editor brought to my attention a list of actions which are in direct breach of the decision and ruling from arbcom, DreamGuy is subject to a behavioral editing restriction. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below is taken directly from the arbcom case page:
Along with the numerous other breaches of condition, and this extremely long block log, I am reccomending an indefinite block until DreamGuy agrees to follow the arbcom's decision. Chafford ( talk) 21:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Last time Arcayne brought a complaint here (same guy who raised the complaint this time on ANI), it was closed without action because it was decided that Arcayne and others were purposefully being incivil, etc. in an effort to incite me to lash out so they could have a reason to try to get me banned. User:PHG said the people complaining had worse histories of incivility than I did. User:Gatoclass went so far as to call the behavior of some of them as harassment. It's frankly getting tiring to have the same people make the same false accusations -- and this time the thread about this at ANI details some pretty disturbing edits by Arcayne (erasing the article talk page, blind reverting some ten edits of mine with the claim that no discussion was on the talk page, etc.) Besides just dismissing this, I would like suggestions on how to get this kind of behavior against me to end. The Jack the Ripper article is still essentially controlled by an editor who reverts each and every change I make no matter what it consists of -- spelling, providing sources, etc. and this has been going on for about a year. DreamGuy ( talk) 22:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I hereby request a topic ban for Levine2112 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from all pseudoscience/alt med. related articles per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions. We have had multiple users say he is disruptive. Recently, he has made false claims of consensus at Talk:Atropa belladonna, mischaracterized discussions, and generally has all the features of a civil POV-pusher who is tendentious and disruptive to the project. We have an entire library of how awful he is available here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Levine2112. NO administrator has taken it upon themselves to fix this problems with this user. Please help. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I agree with GRBerry here. There are legit concerns on both sides. If we topic ban one, we should topic ban both users. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Hi, just a note: ScienceApologist called me a wackjob conspirancy theorist and lunatic, which I believe calls for some sort of Arb enforcement -- although I might be wrong. I don't think a short block will do much good, and I'm not exactly hurt, but someone else might have been hurt by those words. Perhaps it is skirts civility to say it, but I've said before that ScienceApologist seems to pursue edit-warring. I suggested on the atropa belladonna page that he try a different approach: open up a RfC to gauge consensus; if he can get a reasonable consensus to remove the single sentence mentioning homeopathy, then nobody will object to taking it out. If he can't, then he should leave it be. I started a section for that question, but no one has responded yet. (My take is that if 2 clinical trials in mainstream journals have been done, it seems reasonable to give it a sentence.) II | ( t - c) 20:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm filing this report myself regarding statements made by User:Xasha against User:Olahus because the latter is now blocked for revert-warring and wiki-stalking, and because the statements made by Xasha merit the enforcers' attention.
The two statements in question are here ("I'll revert any edit that calls a Nazi invasion 'liberation'") and here ("Wtf man, every edit made by me is blindly reverted by Olahus (he doesn't even care that he introduces Nazi apologia in the process).") (Note too the incivility there.)
For those who may not be aware, what we are discussing is the Romanian advance into Bessarabia (roughly equivalent to today's Moldova) in summer 1941. The province had joined Romania in 1918 before the Soviet Union forced its cession in June 1940. A year of Stalinist terror followed, and Romanians there naturally greeted the return of their army with relief and a sense of being liberated.
Without passing judgment on the liberation/occupation issue, and without seeking to trivialize the crimes committed by the Romanian Army in the period following June 1941, permit me to state that this is an egregious accusation by Xasha, who has a history of comparing opinions he dislikes to "Nazism". First, it was not a "Nazi invasion" but a Romanian operation, something Xasha likely knows well. Second, and even more damning, Xasha accuses Olahus of "Nazi apologia". Unfortunately for Xasha, the Romanian press (and I mean serious, mainstream organs) routinely refers to this event as a liberation, and no one accuses it of Nazi apologia (remember, it was the Romanian Army that went in, not the German). Examples: from Ziua last month - [3] " Voronin's Communists Lament Bessarabia's Temporary Liberation from beneath the Bolshevik Yoke." From Memoria - [4] "the liberation of Bessarabia by the Romanian Army...they were able to return to Chişinău after its liberation." From Jurnalul Naţional - [5] "...a military administration in the provinces liberated in summer 1941." From Gardianul - [6] "On 22 June 1941 the Romanian Army crossed the Prut to liberate Bessarabia." And, from the Romanian Army's own newspaper - [7] "...the anti-Soviet war for the liberation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina..."
Now, why does all this matter? Well, first, Olahus was clearly not describing a "Nazi invasion" as a "liberation". And second, he was not expressing "Nazi apologia" but a mainstream viewpoint. Xasha is attempting to discredit him, to silence him by raising the spectre of Nazi sympathies. Unfortunately for him, the Digwuren case is very clear: "All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee." Given Xasha's expanding block log, including two blocks under the Digwuren case, I trust the Committee will take appropriate action. Biruitorul Talk 23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply
1. Sure there was German participation, but dismissing it as an "abominable Nazi invasion" is a distortion of the facts that serves to discredit Olahus' views as unacceptably tainted by Nazi sympathies - which is clearly not the case (see the Romanian press quotes). 2. That some greeted the Soviets in 1940/44 is immaterial to the discussion - the fact remains that Romanians, who had just been through a year of Stalinist terror (and calling my description of it as such a "nationalist rant" will not diminish its horror by one iota), were heavily targeted, if not explicitly because of their ethnicity, then because they were the dominant ethnic group, and dominant among the classes the Soviets were targeting. And that they did in fact greet the returning Romanians as liberators, which many Romanians still consider them to have been. 3. You need not assume good faith on every aspect of Olahus' conduct, but you don't go around accusing him of defending a "Nazi invasion" and introducing "Nazi apologia", unless he places a swastika on his user page. You don't link people to Nazism, whatever you may privately think their motivations are. You, however, have chosen to do that, and Digwuren is clear on the consequences. But even if that is not the case, one only has to look at its very next section: "should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." Linking someone to Nazi sympathies in the absence of explicit declarations he is one is uncivil, a personal attack, an assumption of bad faith. Either way, you have violated the restriction and I trust the enforcers will act accordingly. Biruitorul Talk 02:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I agree with FutPerf except I want to clarify we can't ignore the incivility. Plus this is getting really old. Maybe topic bans are in order all around? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Any opposition to topic bans for Olahus and Xasha, banning them from Romanian-related articles, broadly interpreted? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Okay, let's go for it. The topic should be "all edits touching on the historical and ethnic relation between Moldova and Romania", I'd say. No problem if they want to write articles on, say, Romanian or Moldovan towns, villages or rivers. But they'd better not then get into a naming dispute where Romanian or Moldovan preferences are at stake. – Also, should the ban cover talk page discussions? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Things you dislike or disagree with aren't necessarily egregious personal attacks. ArbCom cases don't mean that we hunt people down and ding them for every comment we don't like. Shell babelfish 23:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
this SSP report consists of nothing but diffs from months ago, , and much of the verbiage employed by ScienceApologist is clearly in violation of his ArbCom restrictions against assumptions of bad faith. For example: repeatedly calling me obsessed, (and even using this insult as a taunt). Accusing me of wiki-stalking and using the same diffs that he was previously told did not indicate wikistalking. In fact the report in its entirety looks to me to be a violation of his restrictions and an abuse of process. Look at his mischaracterizations of the diffs he provided - he even describes my response to a Request for Comments as 'wikistalking'. I do not wish to have to endure his unfounded attacks in the future. If in the judgement of the reviewing admins, this incident does not rise to a level where sanctions need be imposed, I ask at least that SA be warned against such activity in the future. Dlabtot ( talk) 23:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I believe that Rumiton has shown a pattern of incivility and personal attacks towards me, particularly in the last several postings. He has consistently failed to assume good faith on my part. The comments above are all since the close of the ArbCom case on May 14. He has been notified of the ArbCom-imposed probation, [20], the probation notices appear on talk pages, and I have asked him to retract his remarks and stop making new ones. [21] [22] [23] His last two comments above are his most recent responses, and they indicate his intent to continue making similar remarks. These comments, all directed at me personally, create an "atmosphere of conflict and stress" and are disruptive. I request that an uninvolved admin enforce the ArbCom's remedy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Parishan ( talk · contribs) has been constantly resorting to incivility on Talk:Blue Mosque, Yerevan. Instead of discussing the disputed topics in question he resorts to making not so civil remarks on users he calls "opponents" (Wikipedia is not a battleground). Comments such as: "Astounding! :) People have no flipping idea whatsoever of what they are talking about, yet they choose to go on with their... agenda thinking they are experts in the field. Without hurting your feelings, neither of you realises how ridiculous this looks." or ". I would appreciate it if you refrained from wasting both of us's time on your baseless original-research speculations emerging from your appaulingly poor knowledge of the structure of Turkic languages. Manipulation-schmanipulation. The cobbler should stick to his last." (both found here: [24]). I had asked him to tone it down on July 5 but just yesterday he continued with: "...with your asinine original-research speculations" [25]. Webster defines asinine as: 1 : extremely or utterly foolish <an asinine excuse 2 : of, relating to, or resembling an ass . At the very least this warrants a warning per the discretionary sanctions clause of AA2.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 22:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I've left a note on his talk page. Didn't place him on the restrictions since Parishan is largely a constructive contributor, but I warned him that he could be placed on said restrictions if he continues to make similar comments. Khoi khoi 04:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Small Text reply
VMORO ( talk · contribs), recently returned from a longer absence, is a persistent Bulgarian POV warrior. He was recently blocked for 3RR on Maleševo-Pirin dialect, where he has been pushing for a WP:OR synthesis promoting his preferred national opinion (regarding linguistic delimitations within the Bulgarian-Macedonian dialect continuum) against the reliable sources, using falsified references in turn. He is now back from the block and continues a sterile revert war, with two more reverts in two days immediately after the block, and promising that he will continue forever ( [26]). This is a dyed-in-the-wool, hardened and skilled POV warrior who has never done anything else on Wikipedia. Please treat under WP:ARBMAC. (Note: I'm "involved"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Yada, yada, yada, this is sooo boring...oh, and a block would be punitive now. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 17:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley#Temporary_injunction, Giano II can only be blocked with the consent of an ArbCom member, so I'd like somebody to take a look at diff 1 where Giano calls Chillum a "useless twit" and diff 2 where Giano tells MZMcBride to "stop stirring and trolling and get lost". As I understand it, the civility ruling under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC isn't officially suspended until the current case passes. ArbCom member Jpgordon ( talk · contribs) advised me to file here. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 21:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: editors are entitled to seek the same standard from Giano as they probably would from any other person with a history of rudeness and a civility sanction. Being gratuitously rude isn't heroic, nor praiseworthy, and it's not made okay by discussing what other people might have done. My own view on the harm caused to the project by bad social manners is elsewhere on the wiki. It applies as much for Giano as for any other person who is under a civility sanction. In that sense my view is completely impersonal. It could as easily be one person as another being discussed here. The decision made is that the incivility should end, and I'm not inclined to read into it, "but not if you are this special person or that one".
Geogre, Tex - if (as counter-argued) Chillum was out of line, then you discuss with Chillum, and if necessary you raise Chillum's conduct as appropriate. You do not use it as an excuse to dismiss issues of bad conduct by others.
Sarah - as Giano's been told on numerous occasions, it is his conduct to other users that is the issue, not his views per se. He has zero trouble whenever he speaks in a reasonable manner, and he hits problems when he decides his view on how he should be allowed to speak of others is sacrosanct. It isn't. People don't end up with civility sanctions for no reason, in fact they are not that heavily used, and only in cases of repeated well evidenced rudeness to others, brought to arbitration usually by other users in the community and evaluated by their peers elected to that role. It's not perfect (what is) but it is what we have. If you feel a better way exists, that the community would endorse more than the civility norm, then I urge you to develop the idea and propose it so we can use it. But until then, Wikipedia:Civility is what we have, and communally agree to, even if individually some don't agree.
Giano - you don't moon the jury. You come repeatedly to arbitration with a past record of incivility, and (in this case) a protective measure to prevent others picking on you for no good reason. Your response is while this case is being looked at, to head off and insult two more users. Not huge insults, it's true - worse get ignored - but you are also an incorrigible envelope pusher on this and I don't feel inclined to indulge envelope pushing under a sanction. If someone else were under a sanction, I would take that seriously too. You could have easily discussed the issue, rather than insult the person ("useless twits" adds nothing). Or you could have completely avoided presuming to speak for all "contributing editors" of the project, which you don't. This was uncivil, and you knew it. FT2 ( Talk | email) 02:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Do you care what Giano thinks of you? If not, then who cares if he calls you a "useless twit"? I have no idea if Giano would consider me a useless twit, or a "foolish and stupid person", etc, and I don't really care. Giano believes (and I happen to agree) that his civility parole is a joke, and he's currently endeavoring to prove that point. This behavior is, at bottom, attention-seeking. Giano gets much more attention for his shit-stirring than he does for his stellar article-writing. The solution is to ignore the shit-stirring and reward the article writing with positive feedback. Civility parole gets this equation back-asswards, and the results were and are predictable. I'm doing what I can to change the situation by refusing to enforce this, or any, civility parole. Other admins are welcome to do as they see fit, assuming they can parse FT2's statement and figure out whether he "consented" to a block per the injunction. MastCell Talk 03:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Thanks all of you for the support, however, but by talking to those fronting "Chillum's" latest attempt to get rid of me, and bring attention to himself, you are also encouraging FT2, to comment further. He knows, as do the Arbcom, I do not like him even mentioning my name. Such is my extreme distaste for him. However, as he yet again attacks me and seizes, saliva dripping, this opportunity to attack me, I feel forced to respond, if only for the sake's of any new editors who may not know of him. As Bishonen says above, if he had one scrap of honour or dignity he would not be o this page at all. Most people see straight through him so I suppose it matters not. In his way, he is every bit as bad as the editor currently known as "Chillum," who having posted his lurid and vulgar insinuation for the titillation of his pathetic friends on IRC#admins, immediately ran to them bleating bleating when he got his well deserved punch on the nose. He did this in an attempt to repeat the previous block of me which he orchestrated on IRC#admins by User:Kwsn (The same #admins that FT2 assures us is properly regulated etc. etc. etc.) Following that block, FT2 even had the gall to use my having some edits oversighted oversighted to protect an IRC Admin, (member an Admin with oversight had to agree with me) as a pretext to attack me further. He truly is a person with no honour or scruples. I have no doubt he will come back here with some verbose diatribe, but the problem is now that every time the Arbcom drag me into one of their instantaneously accepted cases built on thin air and hope, they are more and more damaged. Every time FT2 open his mouth they are even more damaged. Everyone with half a brain now sees straight through them - and have they yet addressed the IRC problem? (hat they promised us all they would) No, of course not. Why? ....Because it is owned by one of their number, and they probably feel it is the only place that gives them the support to keep them where they are. In that respect, I dare say they are for once quite correct. Giano ( talk) 13:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply
An observation: Isn't it amazing how when an opportunity to have me blocked is presented or a kangaroo arbitration case held how quickly these things can be opened, but the second they appear to be failing to go in the required direction, they can be speedily archived and shunted off out of sight [28] truly amazing indeed. Wikipedia gets more like a third world junta every day. The arbcom and their IRC friends can't keep hiding the truth for ever. Giano ( talk) 18:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply
On a request for clarification concerning this case - Tenebrae made the following comment - http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=228528545&oldid=228526664
I object to the incivility i.e. calling my edits 'hagiography', 'obssessive', plus various exagerrated claims -in general implying that I'm some sort of unbalanced fan with little capacity for critical thinking who is desperately trying to force innapropriate material on wikipedia - (this is not the case,I say, for anyone who may be inclined to believe his claims, if I wanted to do a personal web site on the artist, I would do so, there are plenty of resources for this besides Wikipedia). The reason I'm pursuing this consistently is because the discrediting has been going on a long time and I would like it to stop i.e. if one disagrees with an edit, why not simply describe what one objects about in terms of content, rather than making personal assumptions about the editor.
-- Scott Free ( talk) 05:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Before taking such mesures, I'd like to request waiting for the arbitration clarification request to finish, as the result of that could give added insight to the situation.
-- Scott Free ( talk) 14:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
A case reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Lysy_making_manual_copy.2Fedit_moves seems to fall in the scope of the Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. Two loosely related incidents are mentioned, both involving Polish users trying to enforce unsourced pseudo-English names on articles which should have sourced common English names which are similar to the German one:
Matthead Discuß 15:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I go with Martintg (something of a first) and Piotrus on this one. Matthead, please don't go fishing for blocks with absolutely zero evidence of anyone having done much wrong at all. Particularly when normal editing processes seem to have resolved the dispute anyway. Please treat this as a very final warning. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 16:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I was invited to comment here by Piotrus. Regarding the Battle of Annaberg, Matthead and I objected to the original title of "Battle of Saint Anne's Mountain" since it is not terminology used in English for that event. Neither Matthead nor Piotrus are without blame in that incident. Matthead could have been a little more patient with the talk page discussion before moving pages, while Piotrus had reverted to a name without any English-language support. We achieved a consensus to move the page from the original title after more editors (myself and the article creator) chimed in.
The Kulmerland case is murky. Unlike the clear (in my eyes) Annaberg case, the territory in question is not universally known by a single name (witness Kulmerland, Culmerland, Kulm Land, Culm Land, Chelmno Land, Chełmno Land, etc.). Many of the relevant English-language history books that I have use variations of the German spelling (Urban, Turnbull, Friedrich, Barraclough), although the Polish spelling is sometimes used (Christiansen, and as alternatives in the others). Matthead wanted to move the article to Kulmerland and listed his rationale on the talk page; Piotrus suggested WP:RM, which Matthead rejected. After there was no further input for a few months, Matthead moved the article from "Chełmno Land" to "Kulmerland". Emulating the edits of Piotrus on other pages, Matthead then added a redirect template to the Chełmno Land redirect; Matthead had previously objected to Piotrus' use of this additions. Although there is nothing "wrong" with the addition of a redirect template, they can also be used to prevent a revert move. Because of this inability to rever the move, Lysy used a cut-and-paste move to restore the article to Chełmno Land, an action which is not kosher. Considering the frustration and accusations of bad faith regarding redirect templates that have been tossed about, my suggestion is that Matthead and Piotrus cease the usage of them.
Although I understand his frustration, I would like to register my disappointment with Lysy's going on leave again. Although our backgrounds are different, I have often found him to be one of the more neutral and thoughtful editors on tendentious topics. Olessi ( talk) 22:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Hi. I was recently called a "wacko conspiracy theorist lunatic" by ScienceApologist (
diff) because I've pointed out that there is a current controversy over the fluoridation of water, as evidenced by, among other things, a 2000 BMJ systematic review which was ""unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide".
[42], and the research covered by a 2006 National Research Council study, which noted studies suggesting that fluoridation increases the leaching of lead and Chinese epidemiological studies inversely correlating fluoride with IQ.
[43] In 2007 SciAm ran an article where it said expert opinion may be changing.
[44] Anyway, today SA told me "[e]xpert opinion may be changing on whether tinfoil hats can protect you from those mind-control beams too" (
diff). He's made the rather
pointy move of renaming the old water fluoridation opposition article to
water fluoridation conspiracy theory, despite the fact that the article has nothing about conspiracy theories, and cut it from 34k to 11k. I don't want to engage in an edit-war, but there's clearly some heavy POV pushing going on here.
II | (
t -
c) 21:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
<-- I am saddened that so many folks have provided clues to SA, but SA still does not moderate his rhetoric. Perhaps we should request a revised sanction. Blocks have not stopped the disruption. SA related disputes occupy far too much attention on this board. Maybe somebody can propose something better. Jehochman Talk 23:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Sigh. Short blocks don't appear to work to get SA to stop being incivil. Asking him to refactor isn't going to work - the disruption has already occurred. Is there any way of restricting him so that someone else has to filter his comments before they get made visible? (The reverse of the flappers of Gulliver's Travels.) I'd be shocked if there is a way to do that. I see three remaining options for dealing with this disruption - long term blocks, long term topic bans, and punting it back to ArbComm. ArbComm is clearly struggling about incivility in both of the related open cases right now, so who knows what would happen if we punted back. I hope somebody else has a good idea here; do nothing appears to be the worst of all possible solutions but I can't see any real reason to favor any of the possible solutions over any other. (Edit warring is so much easier to deal with...) GRBerry 02:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
i don't quite understand why an editor is removing warning template from another editors page, and in the same time threatening me with a block.
User:ScienceApologist removed A LOT of sourced content from water fluoridation opposition article.
I placed a tag on SA's page, and it was removed with a 'harassment' accusation from User:Jehochman.
216.80.119.92 ( talk) 05:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I am very tired of this little game where a gang of single-purpose, POV pushing accounts politely bait and goad ScienceApologist until he loses his cool and violates decorum. That is not what Wikipedia is about. We should be trying to help each other, not setting traps and then running to WP:AE and WP:ANI to get other users banned. The current restrictions on SA seem to exacerbate the problem by encouraging polite trolling. I think we need to revisit these sanctions and come up with a better plan. For instance, we should take a dim view of editors in a content dispute with SA who seek to use this board for tactical advantage. SA for his part needs to maintain decorum, or stay out of the "hot zone". Should that prove impossible, the Wikipedia community will have to impose external restrictions. I note that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions has recently (July 28, 2008) provided a new tool for administrators to control disruption. Perhaps the careful application of discretionary sanctions on SA and those who are trolling SA would help resolve the matter. Thoughts by uninvolved parties would be especially appreciated. Jehochman Talk 11:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
What POV is the "the set of POV pushers to which SA belongs" pushing? Pro-science? Pro-reason? ScienceApologist is brave enough to enter articles like homeopathy and this, and for it, he ends up with a witch-hunting mob, trying to go after him. The fluoridation article was a clear case of WP:SYNTH being used to support a conspiracy theory. He wiped it clean and that upset the folks there. Well, sorry. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 17:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Jehochman asked for uninvolved editors to comment. I haven't seen anyone comment yet that hasn't previously been involved in a dispute against ScienceApologist, or on his side in a dispute. I'm involved too, and have my opinions, but I'd actually like to see what uninvolved editors have to say about it. I'm curious. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 20:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Excellent points are raised by Elonka and GRBerry above. I agree that an indefinite restriction on SA may make sense, until they change their ways. Perhaps a topic ban from the locus of dispute would be a reasonable first step before going to an indefinite block. SA might learn to edit better outside the "hot zone" and eventually be able to return and edit successfully. I agree with GRBerry that baiting on all sides needs to be stopped. I see two levels of problems here:
It seems like we are moving toward some common ground. Who else, not involved in the content dispute, can provide views? Jehochman Talk 23:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Strong measures in this topic area are long overdue. The baiting, POV pushing, gaming, incivility, edit warring, etc and so on BY BOTH SIDES needs to stop now. Since short blocks haven't worked, we need long blocks, topic bans on the range of pertinent articles, full protection of the articles, etc. Hopefully that will work. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
See also: WP:ANI#Edit war over Water fluoridation opposition. seicer | talk | contribs 17:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I've noticed a consistent theme among those who've called for SA's actions to be excused once again - they keep claiming that people are 'baiting' him. I'd like to remind everyone of two things:
User:Shot info removed comment from banned user. making my comment below irrelevant. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 06:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The Dakval socks that keep on popping up here are good evidence of baiting, harassment, whatever you want to call it. Of course, it's quite possible that SA is baited/harassed and he engages in unjustifiable conduct. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I think a good strategy is to dig down through all the layers of misdeed and start by sanctioning the initiator to make sure they don't set off further disruptions. If that does not resolve the problem of improper responses to improper behavior, then the next layer up can be sanctioned, and so on. We want to minimize the use of force while solving the problem as thoroughly as possible. In this case, the first thing to do is figure out who is violating core content policies and stop them. If there is residual disruption (not mere incivility), then additional sanctions can be employed. So, my tools are ready. Diffs please, who made the first bad edits in the current dispute? Jehochman Talk 16:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm of the opinion that this trainwreck of a conversation doesn't deserve my comment, but since Jehochman has asked me to reply specifically about what I think about his "remedy", I'll give it a shot.
All I'm trying to do is make this encyclopedia better, and the usual suspects are whining about an action that happened 10 days ago brought to the attention of this board by a cadre of editors who should have been banned a long time ago. Oh, and a particular administrator who loves to cherry-pick and editorialize diffs in order to demonstrate his hatred for me.
The claim: moving a page was disrupticve. The rebuttal: WP:BOLD, WP:BRD. For fucksake, the page was moved back, and I didn't force the issue at all. If you think moving a page is disruptive, then you obviously don't think editors should ever be bold. My move log indicates dozens of successful bold moves including a number of fringe topics moved to pages that are currently named "conspiracy theories" ( Apollo moon landing hoax conspiracy theories for example). In this case, there is still outlying discussion as to whether this issue is wholly conspiracy theory or not. To ban me from all pseudoscience-related pages (whatever that's supposed to mean) for moving a page about water fluoridation opposition to a new location called water fluoridation conspiracy theory would be really bizarre and almost comical.
One thing we might ask is why the administrators think I was being disruptive. Certainly there are users who complained very loudly about the move with varying degrees of evinced intelligence. But does that indicate disruption? When a user who is single-purposely dedicated to destroying Wikipedia's weighting of fringe theories, should we be worried when they complain loudly about not being able to get their agenda accomplished? Should we allow them the latitude to call the people they hate :trolls" (as is seen directly above) while extolling the virtues of civility and no personal attacks to those on the other side?
I submit that such users would be better served with time-off then myself, especially in light of the fact that Dana Ullman was banned from homeopathy related pages. Precedent by arbcomm is that fringe-POV-pushers are to be banned from articles. That's the real precedent here. It is very interesting that no administrator wants to ban the problematic users who defiantly act contrary to WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Is it because they're afraid? Yes. There are, in fact, administrators who are active in this very thread who have e-mailed me to say, essentially, that I'm right but there is nothing that can be done because they are too scared to act lest certain other administrators declare massive-multiplayer war.
POV-pushing fringe proponets should be told to move along as their contributions to Wikipedia only serve to cause problems for the project. Ask yourself the question, are the Wikipedia articles I've been involved with in better shape now than they were when I started? Do the experiment and see. I've yet to see anyone point out a case where an article degraded because I became involved in it. In contrast, I can point to articles where my opponents have made articles much worse. So, what's it going to be? Are you going to say that people who make articles better are the ones that should be banned first?
ScienceApologist ( talk) 05:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC) reply
SA MO/System is to WP:POVPUSH:, he bates by running down editors - for example WP:FTN: then move to WP:POVN: [55] Atropa belladonna - see the bates;
Another SA MO/System is the Mass Delete of sources. This sudden event bates the other editors into war, he then moves on.
User:AGK has generously offered his time to mentor User:ScienceApologist, who has agreed to mentorship. Hopefully this will lead to a long term improvement in the situation. I have asked SA to back away from all disputes and concentrate on article improvement. Jehochman Talk 07:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply
It has been established that Gretab ( talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet closely linked to the "Musikfabrik" circus described in the above AC case. This sock has been used to evade the remedies of the case and to harass editors with further abusive socking. Accordingly, I have blocked it indefinitely. Congrats to Paul on pulling the wool over my eyes for so long. For a self-proclaimed feminist, your lies about being a woman with a history of being stalked online are especially sickening. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 09:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Someone from IP address 69.2.248.210 has been editting the Jeff Merkey biography, adding a lot of self-promotional material, poorly=sourced material, and claiming harassment when questioned about the editor's identity and/or motives.
Jeff Merkey was banned for 1 year by ArbCom in July 2007, and his ban was reset in April 2008 for ban evasion from an IP address which could be definitely linked to him. [65]. When multiple editors posted tracert logs that showed a hostname that contained 'jmerkey' in the route to 166.70.235.40, the posts were quickly removed by that ip address with the edit comment 'this is harassment.'
So, when User:69.2.248.210 showed up and began adding unbalanced information to the Jeff Merkey biography, an admin logged a suspected sock puppet page and a checkuser request. Observe the history of the user page for that IP address, and note that as soon as the page was unprotected, the ip address deleted the sockpuppet notice with the claim that he was being harassed. [66].
Highly circumstantial, but observe that this editor is very concerned with Merkey's cherokee ancestry, going so far as to claim that his mother's name Archer (AreCherokee) indicates his cherokee heritage. [67]. That sounds like Merkey, not an anonymous 3rd party.
As of the time of the edits, Merkey worked at Calculated Research, the owner of the IP in question. The anonymous IP's claim that he is a "low level engineer" doesn't pass the sniff test. This is Merkey's new anonymous ip address to make POV edits ('remove stuff about jimho, we all know it's true'), self-serving BLP edits, violations of 3RR (see block log for the IP), and evade his arbcom ban.
Request Merkey's ban be reset, if not made permanent for repeated evasion. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.84.2 ( talk) 14:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply
"or he's someone who has stalked Jeff Merkey with so much detail as to know the names of his two kids from a previous marriage" . Ahem ... I never knew Merkey was previously married not do I know which kids are from a previous marriage and which are not (which you seem to know). So who is stalking whom here? Merkey does not work here at CR&T and never has. I got the information from the Lindon 10th Ward Directory which is public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.248.210 ( talk) 21:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC) and I really object to being accused of "stalking" Merkey just because I edited his article. reply