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

Editor was asked to calm down, hasn't edited in more than 3 days since

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]

I told him to relax, stop the edit warring and to start using the talkpages. VartanM (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another edit summery "reverted another lost bakinsky" 1, bakinsky in Russian means a person from Baku. When I reverted his or her two edits to the Aghbulag, which I considered to be vandalism, I gave him/her two general warnings along the welcome template. But others including VartanM1 accused me for biting the new comers and also they got me blocked for those two reverts. The user started his/her first edits with nationalist POV against Azerbaijan such as 1, 2, 3, and do we need this? and I suspect because of that, immediately someone invited him/her to join WP:Armenia. My point is that at the very beginning he/she should have been invited to avoid such editing. I have got an impression that this user will not make any useful edits except being catalyst for edit wars. However, I am not intending to point to you what to do as I am really tired of this kind of things and trying to be away as much as possible from eastern europian related disputed topics. Actually, I found all of them to be disputed even ones about the radio stations! Gülməmməd ^Talk 08:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't appear to have edited since VartanM asked him to calm things down; lets wait a bit and see if he tones things down now. Shell ^babelfish 13:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very simple: one more of these comments and he will get one week block for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

blocked 96 hours by Jayjg

Relevant discussion at

→ WP:ANI#We ned some eyes here (archived)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2#Remedies

A case was filed on wp:ani regarding user:DreamGuy, where another editor brought to my attention a list of actions which are in direct breach of the decision and ruling from arbcom, DreamGuy is subject to a behavioral editing restriction. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below is taken directly from the arbcom case page:

• Incivility - here appears to be a threat on a user acting in good faith and well within expected boundaries.
  
• Assumptions of bad faith - here relating to the same user, DreamGuy accuses him of harrassment. Oh, and the HUGE bold message on the top of his talkpage, the biggest peice of evidence against DreamGuy
  

Along with the numerous other breaches of condition, and this extremely long block log, I am reccomending an indefinite block until DreamGuy agrees to follow the arbcom's decision. Chafford (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Chafford editor confuses me. When Arcayne posted on ANI (where this whole thing has been discussed with links to diffs showing Arcayne's breaking of policies), Chafford responded by saying "I will have a word with him, if no response is given, we should assume his actions are to deliberatly harm Wikipedia, and he will be dealt with accordingly." which is an obvious major violation of WP:AGF (And common sense - so if I'd not been on Wikipedia today he'd use that as proof of wrongdoing?) and implies that he is an admin and will do some dealing. He is not an admin, and his edit history is very bizarre. When I pointed out the AGF policy to him, he responded nastily to my talk page saying that my opinion wsa "worthless". I have to seriously question who this editor is and what he's up to. Surely it's not an interest in following policies when he seems so unfamiliar with some of the basics.

But at any rate, I think the current dispute actually goes quite far in demonstrating that certain editors seem to be here more for wikilawyering instead of improving the encyclopedia. ANI has my full response to Arcayne's false claims (he seems to file a false claim every few months or so). At this point I'd appreciate someone look into Arcayne's incivility and harassment, and this Chafford guy might need a reminder that the rules apply to him also.

Oh, and many of those blocks were mistakes by overzealous admins who jumped in and assumed accusations against me must be true without looking at edits and got overturned by others. Certainly a block history from before the ArbCom decision isn't new information, and the decision made then already knew and took that into account. DreamGuy (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rules apply to him too, oh I do find you funny, especially considering I haven't broken any rules! Chafford (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except CIVIL, AGF, probably ones about pretending to be an admin when you aren't, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are usually given more latitude on their own talk page, and so I don't think a block is required. Obviously, I agree with DreamGuy about his block log, not least because the last mistaken block was by me. PhilKnight (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The requested indefinite community ban goes beyond the ArbCom remedies, which call for a one-year ban only after five blocks. Only two blocks have been logged. The appropriate block, if such is needed, would be up to a week. In my opinion, the listed edits show a failure to assume good faith on the part of user:Arcayne. Regarding PhilKnight's point about user talk pages, I'm not aware of any policy that allows incivility on certain pages, and there's nothing in the arbCom decision about it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If ArbCom decided that such a message on my talk page was incivil, I would have removed it. They were aware of it at the time of the ruling and did not say anything about it. Certainly other admins have supported it as an effective but sometimes unfortunately necessary method of limiting harassing comments. DreamGuy (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where it was ever brought to the attention of the ArbCom. Was it mentioned in evidence? In any case, the evidence that you had failed to assume good faith, including by edits like this[2], was accepted by the ArbCom and they agreed on a remedy as a result. How is your current behavior different from the behavior discussed in that case? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was entered into evidence back then, and other people have looked at it and said it was fine. If the current wording is a big problem I can reword it. But it seems odd to be trying to say I violated an ArbCom ruling for a notice that has been up since before ArbCom was even opened.

My current behavior is identifying someone whose history of edits should speak for itself. The whole idea behind AGF is the ASSUMING part. The proof is all there. The last time Arcayne brought the arguments up here all admin comments agreed that Arcayne was way out of line, saying he was gaming the system, haraassing, etc. That was THEIR statements. Now that he has progressed to being worse it's certainly odd to think I need to be "disciplined" for pointing out an editor's clearly inappropriate behavior. Please go to the ANI page and see the difs provided for the most recent actions. I can provide more difs of his bad faith if necessary. DreamGuy (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last time Arcayne brought a complaint here (same guy who raised the complaint this time on ANI), it was closed without action because it was decided that Arcayne and others were purposefully being incivil, etc. in an effort to incite me to lash out so they could have a reason to try to get me banned. User:PHG said the people complaining had worse histories of incivility than I did. User:Gatoclass went so far as to call the behavior of some of them as harassment. It's frankly getting tiring to have the same people make the same false accusations -- and this time the thread about this at ANI details some pretty disturbing edits by Arcayne (erasing the article talk page, blind reverting some ten edits of mine with the claim that no discussion was on the talk page, etc.) Besides just dismissing this, I would like suggestions on how to get this kind of behavior against me to end. The Jack the Ripper article is still essentially controlled by an editor who reverts each and every change I make no matter what it consists of -- spelling, providing sources, etc. and this has been going on for about a year. DreamGuy (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my earlier comment, I meant that removing a comment by another editor from an article talk page is very different from removing a comment from your own talk page. Otherwise, I agree with Will Beback's comments. PhilKnight (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely that removing comments from one's own talk page is permissible. This complaint also concerns a comment left on another user's talk page, and of the edit summaries in both edits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to have an evenhanded blocking policy. BetaCommand is under similar editing restrictions and actions, and is unblocked at the moment. That being said, Arcayne's actions also need to be considered. If his/her actions in regard warning DreamGuy were improper (and I don't have an opinion at the moment), then DreamGuy's violation of AGF is understandable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not a violation of AGF to point out when someone IS breaking the rules when it's so over the top that it's undeniable. I think of year of blind reverting all edits I make on an article no matter what the content is is more than enough proof that Arcayne is not editing in good faith, but then there's more proof than just that. Check the links provided on the ANI page, and I can provide more if necessary... DreamGuy (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true, and I do believe it is, then I have fallen into Arcaynes trap and fucked up royally, however in my defence, It says on both pages that I am not an administrator, and, in the message I left on wp:ANI, I said he would be dealt with accordingly, which is completely different to me saying I will deal with him accordingly, nowhere did I say that any action taken would be from me, thus, I have not impersonated admin status. Chafford (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I appreciate you showing up to say you changed your mind. I agree that you did not intentionally mislead anyone, but you should be careful how you word things on a page intended for admin discussion. I think you got Arcayne's hopes up too much. DreamGuy (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I see these things, all I can think of, is "Oh, no ... here we go again". I have recused myself from any administrative action on Jack the Ripper; an article that has an appalling history of bad manners and aggressive reverting, despite any and every attempt to build consensus on the talk page. This ancient edit summary demonstrates DG's rather dismissive attitude to consensus and assumption of "Good Faith" – and it seems to me, the majority of DG's edits are to return to a version that has failed to progress through the wikipedia quality process over a period of years. Now that said, I personally believe that both DG and Arcayne have much to offer the JtR article - if only they could find some way to put their differences aside and talk to each other; and, more importantly, engage with others. I personally am fed up with the "forget about content" let's talk about "your behaviour" attitude that stymies article development; drives other editors away and that permeates that particular article.

Now. I don't think it's appropriate to take action against DG, beyond reminding him of his existing restrictions - because he is an honourable man, so are they are all honourable men .... The most useful thing that could be done (for the project) is to put them both on a parole that said that if they didn't get Jack the Ripper to GA status within three months, they'd both be blocked. Kbthompson (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KB, this page is about current, active concerns, not something from a link to something that happened before the last time someone raised a complaint here. That complaint was already opened and closed as baseless. Please stop trying to refight out battles and focus on the CURRENT situation. And, frankly, I am the one who is focusing on the content on the article in question, by making solid edits in incremental steps that are easy to discuss one by one and revert one by one if necessary. The problem is Arcayne does not do that, and you let him get away with it. Solve that problem and the rest goes away real fast. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, it would appear that some folk are keen about turning this into an Arcayne v. DreamGuy argument, most notably, DreamGuy himself. It is not. The sole purpose of my AN/I was to attempt to interrupt a cycle of behavior on the part of DG that slows to a glacial crawl the improvement of the article. The edits that DG introduced into the article were essentially the same he does every time, as if daring anyone to contradict them. When someone does, he begins and pursues a very familiar argument wherein the actual text on point takes a backseat to the personal attacks and pointy incivility. I speculate that he does this to wear down resistance, so that eventually, either the people arguing with him become uncivil (and either get blocked or muddy the waters in any civility complaint about him, which has happened 3x before) or they simply leave the article (which has happened too many times to mention here).

Wile I personally don't really care about DG's usertalk page incivility bit about admins, it bears noting that he says that he would have removed it if asked to by ArbCom. He knows its uncivil, he knows its a personal attack against admins, but won't remove it because he hasn't been directed to by the highest enforcement authority we have here in WP. That says to me that he is will only follow the letter and not the spirit of the rules; he is afraid of the punishment for failing to follow them, and would likely break them the moment he felt he could get away with them. Such was the case with the anon IP logins and edits - through two different RfCs, he was told to not edit anonymously, and only when AE stipulated that he stop did he do so. However, that is a personal assessment, and the usertalk page rant about admins is not really actionable, in my estimation.

Again, my posting at AN/I was to bring the matter of this vicious cycle to a larger peer group for intervention purposes; I was not seeking to have him blocked - clearly, the mixed signals he has received by being blocked, unblocked and blocked again for the same offense have him thinking that if he can game the system long enough (which he has been blocked for in the past), he will likely find a sympathetic ear willing to buy his line of bs about how the entire world is out to get li'l ol' DreamGuy. Blocking DreamGuy doesn't do anything but provide a respite for others in the articles he edits within.

Nor was it my intent to have this matter escalate from AN/I to AE. I didn't think his behavior was blockable, considering what he has clearly demonstrated in the past.

I was seeking, instead, to involve admins (and others) early into this cycle to keep things calm and on target in the article. That DG's first post to the article discussion at Jack the Ripper was to (again) address the editor and not the edits clearly indicates that bringing the problem to a larger audience was the correct step of DR. My post to his usertalk space simply advised him that his edits weren't in keeping with current consensus, and that the BRD model was pretty useful in building a new one, if he were so inclined. My archival of sections that had their last posts in most cases weeks if not months earlier was routine, not sinister. I do not revert all of DG's posts (only those which do not have consensus) and then I ask him to instead discuss his edits and seek a new consensus. That's it. No incivility on my part at all.

I don't want to see DG blocked or banned - I simply want the pattern of abusive editing to stop. It is distressing that the article loses so many editors because of the flare-ups that occur - strangely enough,- only when DG contributes. He has something to offer the article, but most people aren't willing to brave the briar patch.My AN/I was asking for some assistance in clearing a path through that and get to the good stuff without having to deal with the personality deficiencies. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People aren't turning it into an Arcayne vs. DreamGuy argument, that's basically all it is (Colin4c occasionally does some of the same problem behavior you do, but he has been less likely to jump to blind reverts). Hell, more and more it's becoming obvious this is basically limited to Jack the Ripper editors... Solve the basic problem there (Arcayne's insistence that he OWNs it and people feeling blind reverting is the solution or demanding long explanations for uncontroversial edits (the few controversial edits should be discussed, obviously). We need outside people to come in and force policy following on that page, as the last year and a half seems to have poisoned feelings that even otherwise sensible people like KB can't see past. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest this is the permanent message which Dreamguy has on his User Page in which he accuses unspecified admins of corruption. It is a permanent testament to his permanent assumption of bad faith and unwillingness to abide by the wikipedia rules. I am VERY surprised that he has not been told to remove it by the admins:

"If you have a demonstrated history of personal harassment, your posts are not welcome here. (This includes certain "admins" who only got their position through sucking up.) You should know who you are. If you do post, your comments will be removed, most likely unread. If there's any chance that you might not know that your behavior is considered harassment, I will tell you, and from that point on you will not be allowed to post here. To anyone who doesn't know what I mean here, this warning does not apply to you, so by all means leave a message."

It staggers me that whoever is in charge of the wikipedia allows this flagrant violation of its guidelines to remain unchallenged. Colin4C (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, others have seen it and not had a problem with it, and that message is old -- it was introduced as evidence prior to the ArbCom decision, which said nothing about it, and was brought up the last time Arcayne complained here. This page is to see if I currently need any sanction for new behavior, not to try to continuously refight old complaints. Some people just need to let go and move on. Come on, already. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering who the administrators were who only got their position through 'sucking up'. Sounds like great material for a (blue) movie...Maybe that's why the admins don't object to it...gives them a sexy and sinister Hannibal Lector aura when they are trying to chat up girls in nightclubs....:

Admin: "I only got my position on the wikipedia by sucking up! Suck...suck...suck...suck..."

Girl: "Oooh you are awful - but I like you!" Colin4C (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is another example of the kind of editors I have to put up with on the Jack the Ripper article. It seems to attract people like that, for some reason. DreamGuy (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The editor who opened this request for enforcement now says he was misled by Arcayne, so I would suggest that this latest attempt by Arcayne to refight an old battle be closed. I have an encyclopedia to edit, and the attempts by some to game the system by always forcing people they've chosen as enemies to have to defend against baseless accusations should not be encouraged. A warning by one or admins to Arcayne that he can't keep doing this would be nice as well. DreamGuy (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think misled is putting it a but strongly, as Arcayne's explanation (above) indicates that he did not wish this thread to start in the first place - but rather it was begun as a heads up on AN/I to potential problems at Jack the Ripper; and transferred here by an overly concerned citizen. Personally, I'd ask Arcayne to give you the benefit of the doubt and move forward in the spirit of enterprise and intense article work that seems to be breaking out at that page - but I'd also ask you to do the same. It's not necessary for either party to like the other, but a little generosity doesn't go amiss. Kbthompson (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Tut tut, I don't believe that's what he said. If you look a little further up the page you find he said "If this is true, and I do believe it is, then I have fallen into Arcaynes trap and fucked up royally..." so what he admitted was if your accusations of Arcayne's behavior is in line with reality, then he was mistaken. I have been watching this and have noticed that you have a tendency to drudge when the feeling hits you. You have a habit of playing the victim, even when nothing has been done to you. You berate Arcayne for singling you out... over and over and over... kind of like you are singling him out. You make propositions to include things on the page and then recant when faced with Arcayne's concurrence. Then post comments about not understanding Arcayne because he changes his mind to disagree with you. I am not on Arcayne's payroll, I have disagreed with Arcayne in the past and will do so again. He has goaded you as well, in fact I will give it to you that he started this, if not by reverting your edits (something that can be forgiven by discussing it on the talk page) but by posting an inflammatory (if not downright instigatory) note on the talk page about how "we have to go through this again". You are now both arguing over who is letting this drop and editing the article. You confront Arcayne about how he hs to stop WP:OWNing the article but you don't feel the need to discuss the article content without being forced to ArbCom. I'm not saying better worse or indifferent - I'm saying both of you could do with some self-reflection. If both of you would stop instigating the other this might just go away. How about we give that a try? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Dreamguy has just changed his User Page entry warning, deleting the pervy sucking bit, but I feel not improving the the general wikipedia harmonic ambience. His new version reads like this:

"If you have a history of leaving comments on this talk page that serve no purpose other than leaving harassing comments (whether they are cloaked in civil language or not), as identified by myself or admins who have watched this page, your posts are not welcome here and will be deleted on sight. The two primary examples of this are User:Arcayne and User:Elonka, who have been identified by myself and more than one admin as engaging in activity that qualifies as harassment. Any posts by them left here is a violation of good faith editing -- if they have article related points to be made they still can add their comments to those article talk pages (though with Elonka and I not editing any articles in common for the past several years, it's even more inexcusable that she still continues to be obsessed with me). Others who have been warned individually about personal attacks/harassment on this page in the past six months are also not welcome here. Otherwise feel free to leave your comments."

Any comments as to whether this abides by wikipedia guidelines? Are all editors allowed to make such warnings stigmatising other editors on their User Page or has Dreamguy got a special dispensation which doesn't apply to any other wikipedia editor? Colin4C (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it to be in EXTREMELY bad taste to single out any given editor for abuse. The naming of editors and the presentation of arguments against them in an area that does not allow discussion is the very epitome of bad faith. That is an attack page pure and simple. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)}

I am not sure what to add to this, really. I've pointed out the behavioral issue growing in the article which has (unsurprisingly) grown since I asked for some assistance in helping to calm things down in the article and article discussion. I was not asking for DG to remove his rant about admins, though I am increasingly of the opinion that it (and its new incarnation singling our Elonka and myself) is pretty uncivil and an onglong personal attack. The fellow doesn't want me to post on his page, but seemingly has no problem posting on mine whenever he wants.

This is not personal, no matter how much DG wants to paint it as such. I am not posting comments on my user-talk space singling him out, and am not continually attacking him in article discussion (in fact, i agreed with a few of his edits and discussion points). He, however, is attacking me, and I definitely feel harassed. I have no plans to escalate matters (why I filed the ANI in the first place, to de-escalate the problem before it grew into an AE issue), and I am left curious: how much sniping I am supposed to endure from this particular user? Before filing a complaint asking (this time) for him to be blocked, I'd like to know where the line is going to be drawn here.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The line has been drawn. The material has been excised (G10 attack page) and User:DreamGuy has been notified. I have not prejudged the outcome of any complaint/decision that might now arise here. Kbthompson (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked him for 96 hours. That comment on his Talk: page was beyond the Pale, and clearly in violation of his editing restrictions. I suggest he take the time off to remove the rest of the incivilities in the remaining notice on his Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

withdrawn by ScienceApologist

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]

• Sigh, this was on ANI a few weeks ago, and I thought you had realized that your conduct of July 5th you actively encouraged him to make the edits that you then used as an excuse to remove all mention of alternative medicine from the article. And you were banned from the article for a week back then. I see that both you and he have made 3 reverts to the article today. Looking at the article history, there was no revert warring going on until you returned to the article yesterday. To the extent that a consensus on the talk page is visible, he is correct; you appear to be the only editor on the talk page who disagrees with the mention of homeopathy in the article, although the edit war history shows you do have one supporter. Right now, my inclination is to renew your article topic ban and possibly make it permanent. To my eyes, the disruptive editor here is ScienceApologist. Does any uninvolved admin disagree? Or, on further thought, would putting SA on a revert limit be more useful than a topic ban? GRBerry 01:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sigh, I've come to expect at this point that you would make false accusations against me due to your carefully honed and incubated vendetta against me. I can imagine that part of your advocacy is depedent on you willfully refusing to research matters carefully as you've clearly done here. What it seems to me like you are doing is relying on your preconceived notions to guide your construction of misleading, insulting, and ignorant comments. One ray of hope is that at least you are now admitting you are an involved administrator. I'm glad I don't have to worry about receiving punative blocks from you anymore. The hope is that other naive mop-and-bucket-carriers don't get taken in by the falsehoods and gross misrepresentations of your ideologically-bound advocacy.
  • There are so many sins you need to repent of here and so little examination of that beam coming out of your eye. You ironically accuse me of misrepresentation when you have in your short little diatribe written at least two things that are prima facie false, and one insulting insinuation that I should serve as the ceremonial whipping boy for an edit war involving multiple parties. Your cursory glance at the situation only seems to indicate to you one thing: ScienceApologist?!?!?! He's got to be the one deserving punishment!. Rather than wasting time segregating your mischaracterizations, or pointing out the places where you bore false witness against me, let's stick to the real issue of this request. Levine2112 has been acknowledged by a broad swathe of the community as a disruptive editor. People have noticed this behavior at a variety of places including his activity at chiropractic, alternative medicine, and other places where he has not only been most unhelpful, he hasn't ever added any meaningful content or done anything more than engage in outright obstructionism.
  • ScienceApologist (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You appear to be misinterpreting the sentence "Does any uninvolved admin disagree?". It is properly clarified as "Does any other uninvolved admin disagree?" (I obviously don't disagree with myself.) If you come to an arbitration enforcement page, expect arbitration enforcement regulars such as myself to be here.

    I see one factual inaccuracy above that Akhilleus didn't comment on - Levine2112 only reverted two times while ScienceApologist reverted three times. That there was no edit war until you returned to the page is transparently obvious to anyone that looks at the page history; there was a vandalism/test-edit and revert on the 16th of July but otherwise the article was not being edited in the two weeks prior to your return.

    Frankly, I find your description of Levine2112 to be more accurate as a description of ScienceApologist than of Levine2112. Accordingly, as an uninvolved administrator, I am intending to impose appropriate sanctions on you, unless someone else that is uninvolved comes up with a better solution. GRBerry 16:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's at least two editors on the talk page who agree w/SA, and I find SA's arguments convincing myself. I've participated in the discussion before, and found Levine2112 uncooperative. At times I suspected he was willfully misunderstanding other people's arguments, instead of engaging with them and explaining why he disagreed. Partially because of Levine2112, I found discussion at Talk:Atropa belladonna to be a waste of time, and stopped watching the page. I also think Levine2112 has misrepresented discussions as resulting in consensus when they were in fact inconclusive (e.g., this thread at WP:NPOVN, which Levine2112 has used as justification for some of his edits). However, behavior on one article doesn't justify a sweeping topic ban such as the one SA is suggesting. Furthermore, both Levine and SA have engaged in problematic edit-warring on this article, and the best way of dealing with this might be a revert limit for both editors. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if Akhilleus is including me in this count, since I have little desire to repeat myself endlessly on talk pages. It should be considered that the reason for aforementioned lull may have less to do with ratiocination of the force of the arguments than boredom with the force with which they are defended. Based on several due credulity disputes with this user, I consider User:Levine2112's editorial insight imprudent in these areas. The fact of aforementioned disputes should be considered when judging the weight of my opinion. In other areas of the project, for instance here, I consider their judgment sound. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GRBerry here. There are legit concerns on both sides. If we topic ban one, we should topic ban both users. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's unsurprising that you are on GRBerry's side here, but I should also remind people that our little dust-up in January hardly makes you an uninvolved administrator. It would be nice if you stayed out of conversations that did not directly involve you and did involve me. It would be nice if GRBerry did that too, but I've grown used to both of your harassing wikistalking at enforcement pages. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I patrol AE regularly, almost everyday-I a not stalking anyone. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I do believe that a restriction on reverting and undoing would be more useful than a total topic ban or even a topic ban allowing use of the talk pages. Revert restrictions might work to end the edit wars while still letting the users seek compromises if they wish to do so. And it is a solution that seems to be working well in the nationalist POV wars. I see no reason it wouldn't work as well in the pro/anti alternative medicine POV wars and managing the POV warriors such as SA or Dana Ullman (were he still around). And I'm far more concerned by sterile revert warring than by disagreements about how much weight to put on various issues in an article - the first is always a problem, the second is part of the normal editorial process when different editors have different points of view. I do want to start by imposing the sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy's discretionary sanctions first. Let's start smaller than all pseudoscience related articles. If it works there then we could consider expanding as needed under the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience (one arbitration motion for both cases) discretionary sanctions. If it doesn't work there, we can the expand to complete topic bans. Sorting it out, my proposal is (from worst problem to smallest):

1. ScienceApologist, who reverted three times in this edit war, has multiple prior blocks for edit warring, has been formally notified of the existence of discretionary sanctions under both the Homeopathy and ScienceApologist/Pseudoscience cases, and has already been sanctioned for this article once under the Homeopathy case, be put on revert restrictions immediately.
2. Ludwigs2, who reverted three times in this edit war, has a prior block for edit warring, and who from Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 14#Discussion and related activity definitely knows of the discretionary sanctions for the Homeopathy case be put on revert restrictions immediately
3. Levine2112, who reverted two times in this edit war, has prior blocks for edit warring, and who from Talk:Quackwatch where he has been active may or may not know of the the discretionary sanctions for the Homeopathy case be formally notified and warned about revert warring.
4. QuackGuru, who reverted one time in this edit war, has multiple prior blocks for edit warring, and who from Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 14#Discussion and related activity definitely knows of the discretionary sanctions for the Homeopathy case be informally cautioned.
5. Kwamikagami, who reverted two times in this edit war, has a clean block log, and probably doesn't know of the discretionary sanctions (though may have seen them at Talk:Quackwatch where he has been active) be informally cautioned.
6. Dlabtot, who reverted one time in this edit war, has one prior block for edit warring, and probably doesn't know of the discretionary sanctions be ignored.
7. ImperfectlyInformed, who reverted one time in this edit war, has a clean block log, and probably doesn't know of the discretionary sanctions (though may have seen them at Talk:Quackwatch where he has been active) be ignored.

For all immediately restricted, the revert restrictions would be for homeopathy (broadly construed) articles and homeopathy (broadly construed) related material in other articles, be a 1 revert per page per week restriction, and except only vandalism (for which purpose vandalism explicitly does not include point of view editing, an provision that shouldn't need to be made explicit, but...). For each restricted editor, the restriction will lapse 6 months after the last violation by that editor for which a block or caution is issued and logged. Violations to result in blocks or cautions at the discretion of the reviewing admins here at WP:AE. GRBerry 16:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a note: ScienceApologist called me a wackjob conspirancy theorist and lunatic, which I believe calls for some sort of Arb enforcement -- although I might be wrong. I don't think a short block will do much good, and I'm not exactly hurt, but someone else might have been hurt by those words. Perhaps it is skirts civility to say it, but I've said before that ScienceApologist seems to pursue edit-warring. I suggested on the atropa belladonna page that he try a different approach: open up a RfC to gauge consensus; if he can get a reasonable consensus to remove the single sentence mentioning homeopathy, then nobody will object to taking it out. If he can't, then he should leave it be. I started a section for that question, but no one has responded yet. (My take is that if 2 clinical trials in mainstream journals have been done, it seems reasonable to give it a sentence.) II | (t - c) 20:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Olahus and Xasha banned from "all edits touching on the historical and ethnic relation between Moldova and Romania, expires in 6 months"

I'm filing this report myself regarding statements made by User:Xasha against User:Olahus because the latter is now blocked for revert-warring and wiki-stalking, and because the statements made by Xasha merit the enforcers' attention.

The two statements in question are here ("I'll revert any edit that calls a Nazi invasion 'liberation'") and here ("Wtf man, every edit made by me is blindly reverted by Olahus (he doesn't even care that he introduces Nazi apologia in the process).") (Note too the incivility there.)

For those who may not be aware, what we are discussing is the Romanian advance into Bessarabia (roughly equivalent to today's Moldova) in summer 1941. The province had joined Romania in 1918 before the Soviet Union forced its cession in June 1940. A year of Stalinist terror followed, and Romanians there naturally greeted the return of their army with relief and a sense of being liberated.

Without passing judgment on the liberation/occupation issue, and without seeking to trivialize the crimes committed by the Romanian Army in the period following June 1941, permit me to state that this is an egregious accusation by Xasha, who has a history of comparing opinions he dislikes to "Nazism". First, it was not a "Nazi invasion" but a Romanian operation, something Xasha likely knows well. Second, and even more damning, Xasha accuses Olahus of "Nazi apologia". Unfortunately for Xasha, the Romanian press (and I mean serious, mainstream organs) routinely refers to this event as a liberation, and no one accuses it of Nazi apologia (remember, it was the Romanian Army that went in, not the German). Examples: from Ziua last month - [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]

The town was captured during an Axis offensive (Operation Barbarossa), by combined Nazi German and Antonescu's Romanian troops (with Germans having the main role, according to this Romanian site describing the offensive). What followed was a massacre of the Jewish majority in the city and the whole region(about 150,000 were deported to Transnistria were most of them perished; that's what the Romanian gvt said at least). How low can somebody go to call this a "liberation"? Xasha (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. It was an overwhelmingly (but of course not exclusively) Romanian operation; the Germans were busy in Russia. 2. No one here is contesting that Jews in the area were deported and massacred, or condoning the action. However, from 1940-41, Romanians were themselves deported and killed, and Romanians in June 1941, having suffered a year of Stalinist terror, did greet the Romanian Army as liberators (note women throwing flowers before Antonescu), something that is still reflected in the mainstream Romanian press today. 3. Regardless of the precise nature of what happened in 1941, your charges that Olahus was defending a "Nazi invasion" and introducing "Nazi apologia" remain unacceptable, per the Digwuren case - both its special provision regarding Nazi accusations, and more general restrictions based on WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Romanians who studied it say otherwise. See linked site 2. Do you want to battle in propaganda movies and photos? I could bring tons of em showing Soviet greeted with flowers, both in 1940 and 1944. The traditional kiss is even more suggestive. Also, please stop this nationalist rant... the Soviets where not after Romanians, but anybody whom they considered an exploiter, kulak or counterrevolutionary, be it Romanian, Moldovan, Russian or Gagauz (the most famous of the deportees being a Russian ethnic, Eufrosinia Kersnovskaya). The Jews, on the other hand, were killed because of their ethnoreligious association. 3. They were very factual accusation, and that Digwuren provision has nothing to do with it. That provision says clearly: accusations that "a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies", but I didn't accuse his national or ethnic group, I accused only himself for a very specific matter: the presentation of an abominable Nazi invasion as a "liberation". Per AGF "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice". Being harassed by him quite entitles me to stop assuming good faith. Xasha (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sure there was German participation, but dismissing it as an "abominable Nazi invasion" is a distortion of the facts that serves to discredit Olahus' views as unacceptably tainted by Nazi sympathies - which is clearly not the case (see the Romanian press quotes). 2. That some greeted the Soviets in 1940/44 is immaterial to the discussion - the fact remains that Romanians, who had just been through a year of Stalinist terror (and calling my description of it as such a "nationalist rant" will not diminish its horror by one iota), were heavily targeted, if not explicitly because of their ethnicity, then because they were the dominant ethnic group, and dominant among the classes the Soviets were targeting. And that they did in fact greet the returning Romanians as liberators, which many Romanians still consider them to have been. 3. You need not assume good faith on every aspect of Olahus' conduct, but you don't go around accusing him of defending a "Nazi invasion" and introducing "Nazi apologia", unless he places a swastika on his user page. You don't link people to Nazism, whatever you may privately think their motivations are. You, however, have chosen to do that, and Digwuren is clear on the consequences. But even if that is not the case, one only has to look at its very next section: "should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." Linking someone to Nazi sympathies in the absence of explicit declarations he is one is uncivil, a personal attack, an assumption of bad faith. Either way, you have violated the restriction and I trust the enforcers will act accordingly. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it is certainly true that all sides should tone the debate down a bit, Biruitorul, I think you are overlooking one particular thing in the present instance: Xasha was edit-warring in favour of a term that is objectively neutral ("capture"). Olahus was edit-warring in favour of a term that very very obviously is not neutral ("liberate"). It doesn't matter in the slightest if you or "many Romanians" may have reasons to think it was the latter; everybody with a modicum of intelligence and experience with Wikipedia policies must understand the term is unacceptable here. And for Xasha to point out that the unacceptability of the term is due exactly to the (very obvious) fact that it can be understood as Nazi apologia is a reasonable thing to do, even if under more relaxed circumstances I'd expect him to with less of an element of personal insinuation. Given the prior history between the two, I don't see much use in looking at it too much from this civility angle; with this amount of multilateral stalking, harassment and revert-warring, people obviously get hot under the collar. Let's deal with the tendentious editing, which is the root cause of the problems here; the civility issues are secondary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree "liberated" was a poor word choice, and that Olahus' conduct was provocative. Nevertheless, what I see as the crucial point is that Xasha has a history of these Nazi insinuations, and it should somehow be impressed upon him that these are unacceptable. Not only here, but here, here, here and here one sees the same sort of thing. Or here, he described a perfectly good-faith edit of mine as "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa" instead of calmly asking me to modify it or doing so himself. It's difficult to edit productively with another party when he's constantly accusing you of harboring Nazi sympathies. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah. You want be banned with all costs. I'm an evil Stalinist paid by the communists. Something new? Should I call operation Barbarossa a "marbelous enterprise of our great Fuhrer, one who is on par with the gods, to free our superior white race from those mischievous, good-for-nothing slavs and their Jewish rulers" just to prevent any accusation of Nazi-bashing?Xasha (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. And here I was defending him and thinking it might be a good idea giving him a chance to edit without his opponent for while. But this posting has earned him his next block too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The particular little revert war over Balti may have been sparked by my own sloppiness: The original edit was made by an anon user from a Romanian IP ( probably Bonaparte having fun). As I'm watching that article, it popped up in my watchlist and I promptly reverted it upon seeing the "Soviet occupiers, the genocidal policy", dismissing it as the usual by Bonny. Unfortunately, I failed to notice that popups reverts only one edit, leaving most of the anon's edits intact. Xasha noticed this on the following day and reverted deeper, correcting my mistake. --Illythr (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, Olahus has made a statement on his talk page. Instead of copying the rather sizeable piece here, as he asks, I'm linking to it instead. --Illythr (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with FutPerf except I want to clarify we can't ignore the incivility. Plus this is getting really old. Maybe topic bans are in order all around? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess topic ban for both plus strict civility parole would be a good thing. Two people permanently at each other's throats can simply not be tolerated. (Reminds me of that situation last year with User:Tajik and User:E104421) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - would that be Olahus and Xasha or me and Xasha? Because I haven't even edited on Moldova-related matters for a while. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Olahus of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 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]

• No, seems like a good idea.  Sandstein  07:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support such topic ban, but it needs a time expiration, six months will do nicely as a start. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is still happening? Oh, yes, please. -- tariqabjotu 22:56, 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]

Agree with FP's proposal, 6 months, renewable if their behavior doesn't improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ban applied. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Things you dislike or disagree with aren't necessarily egregious personal attacks. ArbCom cases don't mean that we hunt people down and ding them for every comment we don't like. 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]

There is another report about SA below. Perhaps it would be best to merge these two threads? I'll have a look at that SSP report. Jehochman ^Talk 23:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

This is a completely different issue from the report below. Totally unrelated except for the fact that it is the same problematic editor causing the problem in both cases. So there is no reason whatsoever to merge the threads. Dlabtot (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:FT2 and User:Alison were involved in that thread and are fully aware of SA's ArbCom editing restriction. The report was closed "inconclusive", not "bogus" nor "abusive". I feel that no further action is required. The rhetorical question "Obsess much?" cited by Dlabtot is not perfectly civil, but under the circumstances of manifest disingenuity, it was not an assumption of bad faith, nor was filing the report. Folks, please stop running to WP:AE every time there is a disagreement with SA in an attempt to get SA banned. We are all working together on a collaborative project. We must help each other, not strategize on how to get opponents banned. Jehochman ^Talk 23:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So SA is free to make the same unfounded attacks against me in the future? He can call me 'obsessed' all he wants and it is for some reason not considered a personal attack? Why not? Dlabtot (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to respond in kind? Can I make the same type of personal attacks against him that he makes against me? Dlabtot (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I respectfully request that you allow another admin to close this report. Dlabtot (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I close this report? Am I not allowed to make my opinions known, or is this board restricted to only those who agree with and support you? When you bring a report here, it is best not to assume bad faith of those who are trying to help you. You're being point-y does not help this situation. From what I see, there is a longstanding disageement and one editor is using ArbCom sanctions as a club to subdue another editor. I dislike that. Jehochman ^Talk 23:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

sounds resolved to me. Next time put him on formal notice of restrictions. ..Rlevse

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]

• User was a party to AA2 and AA1, was not named in remedies in either case. The editor has not been put on formal notice previously. I see Khoikhoi imposed sanctions under the case related to the article in early July; I'll go jog his elbow. GRBerry 00:38, 2 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. Khoikhoi 04:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Small Text[reply]

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

User blocked for a week.

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]

I would support a month-long topic ban. Short blocks do not seem to be working here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has been using sockpuppets too (both anon and account). See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/VMORO‎. BalkanFever 13:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re that RFCU, his sock is blocked indef and VMORO one week. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

the problems of the original case continue-civility and consensus. Therefore Scott Free and Tenebrae are banned from the article again for 3 months. The clarification, now at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Buscema#Request_for_clarification_:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FJohn_Buscema, said they should respect consensus and they both need to work on that. They can edit the talk page...Rlevse

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Buscema

On a request for clarification concerning this case - Tenebrae made the following comment - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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]

The repeated problems between you two show stronger measures are needed since you can't work things out yourselves. Is there support for reimposing their bans on the John Buscema article? Three months didn't work before. How about 6 months this time? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:04, 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]

This seems a fair reason for suspending this thread, in fact. Until the parallel request for case clarification has completed, I'm going to mark this thread as  On hold. Anthøny^(talk) 10:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of procedural issues to be settled here, fyi: whilst 'on hold', does this thread remain here indefinitely? Do we archive it, and if so, how do we ensure that it gets restored once not on hold (ie., when the arb/ clarification has finished)? Thoughts welcome. Anthøny^(talk) 10:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed the arbs yesterday about this. Should know something about it in 1-1.5 days. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There was clearly no consensus for ScienceApologist's page move from Water fluoridation opposition to Water fluoridation conspiracy theory, so I have undone the move and recommended that SA go through WP:RM for any controversial moves. His above diffed comments to ImperfectlyInformed were also clearly uncivil and a violation of his ArbCom restrictions. I recommend a block for disruption, both for the "mind-control beams"[45] comment and for the WP:POINTy page move today. --Elonka 22:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have dealt with ScienceApologist extensively, including investigating them for sock puppetry, and counseling them after I set up Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. It is my experience that sequential blocks, especially with this editor, are not effective at correcting habitual incivility. The blocks only cause more outlandish statements when they return, and encourage wikilawyering by opponents. We want the incivility to stop, absolutely. (SA, please read WP:BAIT one more time!) A more effective strategy at controlling these problems is to identify them to the editor, and request refactoring, or to simply redact incivil remarks. Perhaps try this first. SA has done many positive things for Wikipedia. We should not be so quick to block vested contributors. Jehochman ^Talk 23:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why I should waste my time with asking him to refactor repeated and obvious incivility. If the incivility was not obvious, then refactoring seems reasonable, but I personally don't get an emphasis on refactoring when the incivility is obvious. Refactoring does little, and half the time the refactoring is done in a snide way. Now, maybe an apology would be in order, but I'm not expecting one. II | (t - c) 23:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think SA trusts me enough to take the advice I just left on his talk page. Incivility is a definite problem, I agree with you, but this situation calls for a lighter touch, I think. If you have further issues with SA, feel free to let me know and I will do my best to help. Jehochman ^Talk 23:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'll admit that I don't have much hope. His incivility is little in comparison to the blatant battleground behavior, POV pushing, and absurd comments which I have to deal with every time I encounter SA. Anyway, SA knows that those comments should be refactored, and should have been refactored immediately after they were made. Asking me to spend more of my time asking him to refactor, and seemingly accusing me of baiting him, is mildly insulting. I frequently hear that SA makes good contributions, but it seems like he spends much of his time making edits carefully calculated to start edit wars and pointless fights. I don't see much in the way of good contributions. II | (t - c) 23:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need not spend your time. You can certainly bring reports here, or you can ask an uninvolved editor to mediate informally. I have offered. Rules are important, but we do not enforce them for their own sake. Every time we need to think, what is best for Wikipedia? Jehochman ^Talk 23:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a third report on this very page, but that one was filed by SA about me. However, when the truth of it all was revealed and the admins began to discuss punitive action against ScienceApologist, he quickly "withdrew" his request and no action was taken. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-- I am saddened that so many folks have provided clues to SA, but SA still does not moderate his rhetoric. Perhaps we should request a revised sanction. Blocks have not stopped the disruption. SA related disputes occupy far too much attention on this board. Maybe somebody can propose something better. Jehochman ^Talk 23:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are few editors who have done more to define down the minimum level of civility required to participate at WP. WP will somehow manage to soldier on should we ask SA to take an enforced break of some length to reconsider his methods. Ronnotel (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Short blocks don't appear to work to get SA to stop being incivil. Asking him to refactor isn't going to work - the disruption has already occurred. Is there any way of restricting him so that someone else has to filter his comments before they get made visible? (The reverse of the flappers of Gulliver's Travels.) I'd be shocked if there is a way to do that. I see three remaining options for dealing with this disruption - long term blocks, long term topic bans, and punting it back to ArbComm. ArbComm is clearly struggling about incivility in both of the related open cases right now, so who knows what would happen if we punted back. I hope somebody else has a good idea here; do nothing appears to be the worst of all possible solutions but I can't see any real reason to favor any of the possible solutions over any other. (Edit warring is so much easier to deal with...) GRBerry 02:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should ban ScienceApologist from the areas of the encyclopedia where he has difficulty. Perhaps he would remain involved on other topics, and in time, learn the benefits of cooperating in spite of disagreements. SA's violations of decorum make it much harder to resolve those editorial issues that he would like to see resolved. I feel that we should go back to ArbCom with a proposal. Jehochman ^Talk 02:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and we have conducted topic bans on editors with far less stacked against them (Kossack4Truth comes to mind). Do you think this is a suitable and acceptable course of action? seicer | talk | contribs 03:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Thread moved here from WP:ANI[edit]

Note: The comments below up until 06:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC) were moved here from WP:ANI so as to consolidate the discussion.  Sandstein  06:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[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 guess WP:DTTR applies here, but I imagine such a large change should have been discussed on talk page first. As far as Jehochman's actions, I am not sure. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The IP persists in issuing a vandalism warning to ScienceApologist over what is a content dispute. Any edit made in an effort to improve the encyclopedia is not to be considered vandalism. There is no requirement to discuss edits beforehand. If somebody objects, then discussion is a good idea. The IP is abusing vandalism warnings in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. That is not cool. Jehochman ^Talk 05:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh. I tend to disagree. User SA has a history of bad behavior.[46] Removing dozen sourced paragraphs is far from an effort to 'improve the encyclopedia'. In addition, I didn't even participate in the content dispute, but have just noticed SA's unjustified deletion of the content. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

ScienceApologist had already been brought up on WP:AE for that edit. The IP is now forum shopping, which is itself disruptive. We don't solve problems by instigating huge dramas that disrupt multiple pages. Over at WP:AE I have already suggested rather strict measures for dealing with SA's disruption. A checkuser would be an excellent idea, and if it reveals sock puppetry by SA, that would be grounds for even stricter measures. Jehochman ^Talk 06:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, most new users don't find their way to AN/I so swiftly. It may be worth checking whether this IP is somebody logging out to evade scrutiny of their own actions. It is not a good idea to act on accusations without first checking the reputation of the accuser. Jehochman ^Talk 06:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Tired of the gaming[edit]

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]

For instance, one week topic bans from pseudoscience and natural science articles for SA and the IP (and its main account) might help control disruption. We need to be especially even handed to the combatants on both sides, lest one side be encouraged to troll the other. Jehochman ^Talk 11:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brief blocks and/or topic bans are not the answer. ScienceApologist seems to take pride in the number of times he has been blocked, banned, or had to go through ArbCom cases. To address that kind of disruption, I recommend that an indefinite block be imposed, until he gives his word to change his behavior. With most other editors, a brief block usually gets the message across that behavior needs to change. But with ScienceApologist, he has received the message, but deliberately chosen to ignore it. I am also unaware of any location where he has acknowledged the authority of the ArbCom rulings about him. To my knowledge, he has never actually promised to abide by them. Until he personally gives his word that he is going to change his approach, he should be removed from the project. If that means we lose some of his good edits along with the disruption, well, okay, we can live with that. On the flip side, by his aggressive approach, we are suffering even greater damage, both from the good edits that we are losing from good editors that he is driving away, and from the bad example that he is setting towards other newer editors, that "this is how you get things done on Wikipedia." But that is not how things should be done, and until SA acknowledges the community's will on this, he should not be permitted to cause further disruption. --Elonka 13:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am reminded of this quote:

"I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind." --Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51 5 February 2008

We need to be mindful of just who would be impacted by such a block or action. We might lose a vested editor in science, but the benefits, in my opinion, far outweigh the cost. Look at how much time has been wasted in the two most recent AE cases, on top of the countless AE, ANI, AN etc. filings. Or the editors who have stopped contributing because of the messes. And so on. seicer | talk | contribs 13:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, it is a game being played by both sides of the dispute, not just one side of it. For an example, take a look at this ANI thread started 7 hours ago, where a member of the set of POV pushers to which SA belongs baited and goaded an editor with the other point of view and then ran to ANI in hopes of getting a ban. The game has been going on for a very long time (I've seen evidence of it going on more than a year ago) and has become an entrenched tactic of both sides of this POV dispute. I think we may need to start handling this rigorously the way we do the various nationalistic disputes - which are much better managed - any editor on either side who is disruptive gets dealt with firmly. We've given too many N^th chances to too many editors and tolerated too much disruptive behavior for too long. The long standing patterns of behavior in these topic areas are so poor that any new editor coming into it will come to see it as our accepted, approved style of behavior unless they have a grounding in good behavior from work elsewhere. There are some editors with reasonable behavior patterns in this mess, but it is hard to see them due to all the noise and heat being generated by those whose behavior patterns are not reasonable. GRBerry 15:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the nationalistic disputes are between people that have fundamentally opposed but arguably legitimate points of view. In this case, we have editors that want to treat haunted microphones and useless nostrums as being legitimate. The reason the dispute has lasted so long is because we tolerate such nonsense, and people have gotten frayed nerves from having to constantly deal with it. We need to stop pretending that it is a dispute between two sides that needs to be mediated and arbitrated. If people add statements supporting homeopathy, paranormal occurrences, and similar quackery and nonsense as true, block them immediately, and escalate to bans quickly. The problem will never go away for the same reasons that vandalism will never go away, but it can be managed if it is dealt with the same as any other effort to damage the encylopedia is.
Kww (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LOGANA and 66.65.85.138[edit]

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

is ScienceApologist really the subject of baiting?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not seeing the baiting. I'm seeing a bit of tenditions discussion from several editors, that's mostly just fine, and mostly working towards understanding and resolution of a question on sources. I'm also not seeing SA's alleged abuse of other editors in this instance. no comment as to the correctness of any party to that discussion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[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 don't get this baiting thing at all. Are we going to give SA extra latitude because he is an aggressive editor? IMO, the entire baiting thread implies that SA can't keep his temper and that therefore we should give him a more lenient treatment than other editors in the same situation. This is an argument you would use as an excuse for the behavior of a child. And by the way, if SA represents rationality, reason and the scientifc mainstream, would we not expect that to be reflected in a mature and balanced editing behaviour? MaxPont (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

While the socks are tenditios, and unhelpful, edit warring with them doesn't help the encyclopedia. I mostly don't participate in the broad article areas that SA is involved in because the edit warring is disruptive to my participation. I mostly agree with SA's POV. If there were some way for SA to keep the edit warring out of his participation, I think other editors would be more willing to be involved. Another option (and one I've contemplated) is to develop some set responses (even written out) to esentially cut and past to respond to the tenditious arguementation. The challenge here is to actually read someones statements first, and I freely admit to glossing over quite a lot of talk page blather. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[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'd hate to do the research and be told I'd researched the wrong thing: please define what you consider to be the locus of "the current dispute".
Kww (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Questionable behaviour, in chronological order:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The page move[edit]

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]

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

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

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

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

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

Mentorship[edit]

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]

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

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

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

endorsed

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]

Could you clarify on "used to evade the remedies" please? Are there specific edits you can point to that are clear COI? (please take timing into account as well... if I edit Ford Mustang, and a year later get a contract from Ford, that edit wasn't a COI then and isn't now.) ++Lar: t/c 10:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Check the deleted contribs, as well as the edits to Germaine Tailleferre and related articles. In all of these cases Musikfabrik has an obvious commercial interest (the subjects are in their sales catalogue, and have been long before Gretab started editing). Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a possible COI to me. How did you determine how long this composer (or others) were in their catalog? That's really just a curiosity point for me rather than anything else. We're construing this broadly, that any edit to anyone who was ever in the MF catalog, regardless of what the edit is, counts as a COI, correct? (that is, there is no possible allowable edit whatever?) If that's the interpretation I agree this is a violation. If it's not the edits would have to be examined more closely to understand what they are. ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was heavily involved in the arb case in 06, as you can see from the evidence pages. I remember that Wehage and Tailleferre were in the MF catalogue back then (in fact, a large chunk of the dispute in 06 centred around MF promotion of these two, particularly Tailleferre). Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi: If you were "heavily involved" are you the right person to be implementing arbitration enforcement provisions? There are a lot of admins after all. My eyebrows are now certainly raised once I learned of your (and Folantin's) long term involvement in this matter. (I consider myself involved enough in this matter that I would not enforce this... and my only involvement, IIRC, was to have done some reverting based on info Makwik gave me) But I was asking about what "banned from editing any article dealing with artists or projects listed in their sales catalog" means. No possible allowable edit whatever? Edits made to an artist (broadly interpreted by lay people this would include composers, conductors, performers, program illustrators, you name it) even before they were in the catalog would also be forbidden? Clarification would be good. I'm not debating the restriction, merely trying to clarify what is and isn't allowed. ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is purely academic. It's very simple. Musikfabrik people cannot edit articles of people in their sales catalogue. This primarily refers to composers but also to performers where the performer is the person being "sold". Obviously it doesn't refer to "program illustrators". That's just silly. Wehage products are sold by Musikfabrik both as composer and performer, I believe, and Tailleferre products are sold with her as composer. Wehage and Tailleferre have certainly been in the MF catalogue long before Gretab/Wehage started editing here. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional clarification... Tailleferre seems clear enough,but I'm still not clear about Jacques Leguerney... when was that artist added to the catalog and when were the edits? (no, see Guy's comment, below... yesterday is... well... yesterday) Or are edits in advance also banned? You still haven't addressed the potential COI issue from your being "heavily involved" though... ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to happen is an outright User ban with people associated with the User:Musikfabrik role account, since they have violated ArbCom ever since the decisions were handed down; they have evaded ArbCom through sockpuppetry; they have harassed Wikipedians over at the Wikipedia Review; they have defamed people associated with Wikimedia; they have engaged in harassment on-wiki, including creating fake names in order to continue their self-promotion; et al. People are banned for far less than this user's behavior these last two years. AE needs to indefinitely ban Musik Fabrik. --David Shankbone 16:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you advocate outright bans for offwiki harassment then, correct? How far would that extend? Disparaging remarks? Alleging connections? Who is in and who is out? ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are only focusing on one element in a long incomplete list. But yes, spreading pedophilia rumors about Wikimedians on Wikipedia Review, inciting the outing of Wikipedians like Newyorkbrad, and writing websites that "Wikipedia has a history of being extremely open to issues of pedophilia, homosexual, transsexuals and even some sexual practices that most adults didn't even know existed. All of this done by anonymous editors. It's theperfect setup for sexual predators" are evidence that this person does not have WP:ENC in mind, which is why we are all here. I think this user's shameless self-promotion and scurrilous behavior against this site are reasons for ban; the sockpuppetry to evade their ArbCom ruling and harass Users being the primary reasons. --David Shankbone 18:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I would think the combination of violating ArbCom sanctions, WP:COI plus creating sleeper accounts to harrass a user should be enough for an indefinite block. That certainly seems to be the consensus here. Plus you can Google "pendantic Gretab" then compare what you get with these on-wiki edits[63][64]. --Folantin (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I clerked this case. I remember it well because I was interested in the claims of sexism. The ruling seemed sound to me. After a quick review of the case now, I see no reason to reverse the decision or doubt Moreschi understanding of the situation. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacques_Leguerney&diff=prev&oldid=231756325 and see http://www.di-arezzo.co.uk/scores-of-Jacques+Leguerney-from-MusikFabrik.html; Jacques Leguerney is associated with MusikFabrik. That edit was yesterday. Gretab has consistently edited articles on Musikfabrik artists and is clearly well aware of the arbitration case. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• There is also Francis Poulenc in December 2007 and Germaine Tailleferre in April 2008. This User clearly has no intention of not editing articles of works in their catalog. --David Shankbone 16:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like a good call Moreschi. Shell ^babelfish 16:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC