Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive33

Pseudoscience
Per Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience I hereby ask for administrator help in dealing with a conflict with User:Dicklyon at Eric Lerner. This user added some content, and in so doing ended up inserting scientifically inaccurate wording, innuendo, POV-statements, and against-consensus unduly weighted opinions into the article. When I tried to fix the problems accompanied with an explanatory note on the talkpage, he reverted me with a very rude edit summary and accused me of "POV spin". When I then removed the edits entirely per WP:BRD and tried to explain why we should do this on the talkpage, he reverted me without discussion. Please tell me, how am I supposed to deal with this kind of behavior? I'm trying to be civil and calm, but the user seems to have an obvious grudge against me and is extremely unresponsive.

ScienceApologist (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have detailed my reactions to SA's edits on Talk:Eric Lerner. Funny that he would accuse me of content with innuendo, given his edits here.  I'm just trying to restore some balance to this article that he's been picking away at for months. Dicklyon (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the "rude edit summary", it was "all the ScienceApologist 'improvements' are designed as SPOV spin;" this was genuine; all of his edits were to promote the scientific point of view over the neutral point of view, which I had already said on the talk page; it's not rude, nor personal.
 * As for the "reverted me without discussion", I admit I could have waited until after I had composed the talk-page details on his edits; it took a while. Dicklyon (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's painfully obvious from Dicklyon's statements on the talkpage that he has decided to take on the role of fringe promoter. He's reintroducing reviews that were excluded due to their dubious reliability. He's trying to insinuate that the Cosmic Microwave Background is controversial. He's stating as fact that Paul Davies made a "misattribution" in his panning of Eric's book. He is insisting that Lerner refuted every one of the errors that Wright pointed out with Eric's model, when that is plainly not true. He's rewriting the article from a sympathetic point-of-view rather than a neutral point-of-view. And he's obviously convinced that there is some sort of "SPOV" that I have adopted that I'm trying to insert. That is what he uses as justification for edit warring. We need someone to help. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think any of my changes promote Lerner's fringe ideas; they merely tone down SA's attacks on them. I'm not a believer or proponent of the ideas, so why would I promote them?  I'm not "stating as fact that Paul Davies made a 'misattribution' in his panning of Eric's book;" rather, I state as fact that Lerner's rebuttal focused on Davies making such a misrepresentation (as supported by the cited source). And I'm not "insisting that Lerner refuted every one of the errors that Wright pointed out"; I just didn't like the way SA's edit seemed to imply that he agreed with some of the criticisms; I'm open to working on this.  I agree with SA where he says "We need someone to help".  Dicklyon (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dicklyon, edit warring isn't an appropriate way to get disputed changes across, rather, you should have attempted to form a consensus on talk. Clearly your edits were designed to swing the article in a particular direction and they appear to have in some cases, actually misquoted sources or severely spun the material. You've also made edits that over-rode earlier consensus developed on the talk page; while consensus can change, its important to show that it has actually changed.  I would strongly suggest you self-revert and use accepted dispute resolution mechanisms from now on.  Shell    babelfish 10:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I take your first point about how I should have proceeded. Of course my edits were designed to swing the article in a particular direction (toward neutrality, away from SA's topic bashing), but I didn't actually misquote sources or spin the material (unless you count the wording details that I've sinced fixed, which I had no idea would be seen as biased).  As to the earlier consensus, I can't find what's being referred to.  There was an earlier fight about quoting reviews, but no consensus that I can find in the talk archives; if you see one, can you point me toward it? Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've notified Dicklyon of the ArbCom restrictions. If problems continue, then I'll give him a 1-week article ban. PhilKnight (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems are continuing. See. We seem to work together well for a time, and then he goes all tit-for-tat on me. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We're in the middle of discussion of why you find a review in the Chicago Tribute less reliable than the blogs of the cosmologists that the subject is criticizing. The talk page section "Tags" has the discussion that includes my clarification of the reason for adding these tags, which  was because you objected when I removed the one the Chicago Tribute; is that what you mean by "tit-for-tat"? Dicklyon (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So essentially you are saying that a Noble Prize winner for the Discovery of the CMB is not a reliable source because he's now retired and that experts who publish on the internet are not a reliable source? I think you need to read some WP:SPS and think carefully about whether that's really the content claims you want to make. Because if they are, there's really no question but that you are acting exactly like a POV-pusher for Lerner. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The last time I talked with Arno Penzias, quite a few years ago, he explained that he had gotten out of cosmology immediately after the CBN discovery (meaning he never got into it, really, just picked up some signals). He's still a clever guy, and the NYT is a reliable source for his opinion, but you were wanting to put dubious tags on non-expert opinions in newspapers, etc., so this seems worth re-evaluating, too.  It's not a conclusion, but a question, as the tag says.  Same with the blogs; sure, they're expert cosmologists, and their blogs are reliable sources for their opinions, but we've re-opened the discussion of what kinds of reaction sources we really want in the article; I didn't think that just the one you didn't like should be tagged.  Do we really want the article to be dominated by the reactions of the scientists that Lerner criticizes? Dicklyon (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're now essentially parroting a lot of commentary from various Lerner-supporters over the ages with the novel inclusion of some unverifiable personal contact you have had with Arno Penzias that you now use to cast light aspersions in his general direction. I was fine with the way the article was before you showed up. I don't particularly want to see it fill up with criticisms, but WP:WEIGHT demands that we let the readers know how marginalized Eric Lerner and his ideas are. As for "swamping it with criticisms", it seems to me that if an idea has been roundly criticized from a number of different sources, a good encyclopedia will let the reader know. We are not here to provide a soapbox for Lerner's ideas, which is essentially what you are doing by adding content that has been roundly criticized by cosmologists. Our choices to me seem clear: either mention the stuff that Lerner believes and then discuss (with an eye on WP:WEIGHT) the fact that it is considered totally wrong by anyone in the know, or we try to summarize the situation briefly as we did in the previous version of the article. What we absolutely cannot do is what you propose and that is have a little protected page to expound upon all the views of Eric Lerner while including some mealy-mouthed caveat at the end of the article to the tune of, "Oh yeah, by the way, no one who knows anything about astronomy believes this b.s." No, that kind of editing defies almost every content guideline we have here at Wikiepdia: WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:ASF, WP:UNDUE, WP:REDFLAG, etc., etc., etc. I've been telling you this for some time any you just keep coming back trying to argue that we need to let the page "explain Lerner's ideas". Well, Lerner's ideas are explained by the best sources around right now, and you seem to think that it's "swamped". That's POV-pushing, pure and simple. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As for working well together, I haven't seen it. The only thing that works is to keep adding stuff to the article to try to balance the debunkings that you vigorously defend, which has made quite a mess of it.  You appear to have had a real ownership problem here since 2006, and won't let the article be about its subject without swamping it with criticisms. Dicklyon (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are under the sad misconception that "balance" is what is needed. But "balance" at Wikipedia is covered by WP:WEIGHT: something you seem quick to ignore. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, please see this diff with snarky edit summary. Dick keeps poisoning the well and making the environment very hostile. Will someone please help? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was bad; snarky and WP:POINT. I apologize.  But I hope you got the point (see ). Dicklyon (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As for "problems continue", yes; how can it be otherwise when one tries to improve an article that you've dug in on? If PhilKnight decides he needs to block me for your behavior, I'll have to live with that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've worked well with many other editors in the past. Please try not to overgeneralize. Also, the last sentence is again very snarky. "block me for your behavior" sounds to me like you've already decided to be a martyr. I really was trying to work with you. I don't know what more to do at this point. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope you can imagine how much restraint it takes for me not to just tell you what I feel about that statement. Dicklyon (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Judging from how personally acrimonious a tone you've adopted with me at Talk:Eric Lerner I can only imagine. I hope you aren't editing under duress or working out some kind of personal vendetta you've developed against me. I will assure you I have none against you. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm fine, thanks; I do manage to work in a few non-tendentious edits in between dealing with you. Dicklyon (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Continuing disruption
An outside user removed POINTy tags of Dicklyon which Dicklyon responded with by removing a tag that is under dispute at the talk page with an extremely snarky edit summary:.


 * "finish John Nevard's removal of pointy tags on sources reliably reporting reviews" is snarky? Dicklyon (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. It's tit-for-tat editing. You're deleting a tag that we're actually discussing on the talkpage just because John Nevard removed tags that he determined you placed on in violation of WP:POINT. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

He's also declared, more or less, that he has decided unilaterally that cosmology is a field "with peer-reviewed journals but arguably not experimental rigor" and continues to make personal statements about me.


 * It's not a decision, it's a opinion. It's not in article space, and not disruptive.  It's on a talk page reacting to your proposal; am I not allowed to express an opinion that concerns you there? Dicklyon (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there you have it. Dicklyon's personal opinion is, essentially, that cosmology arguably lacks experimental rigor and seems want to try to make sure this fringe viewpoint is accommodated well on Wikipedia. It's a classic case. Where are the administrators who will act? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What's more he has now commenced to adding unreliable sourcing tags to another marginally related article, in seeming violation of WP:PARITY. He seems to have followed his way over there due to comments left on my user page by User:Phaedrus7, where I advised him that the sourcing was appropriate since David Talbott's ideas are all self-published. It seems as though Dicklyon is really trying to prove a point here.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If there's a point, it's that you push a POV wherever you can; but I was more trying to address it than to prove it. All I did was to tag the sources that I believe need to be reviewed for reliability.  That's not nearly as disruptive as what you've been encouraging  to do there.  So what's with all the whining? Dicklyon (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess it's okay for you to keep making antagonistic statements about me? This is beginning to feel like baiting. Can we please get some help? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I sure hope so. Dicklyon (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And now he's stalking me to WT:NPOV:. "ScienceApologist is all about swamping the articles on fringe or pseudoscience ideas". ScienceApologist (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WT:NPOV was not an appropriate place for a personal comment, so I took it out. Thanks for repeating it here, though; the rest of my sentence and paragraph are worth reading, too, to get a clearer idea how our interpretations of NPOV differ. I hope this discussion is not out of order. Dicklyon (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear that Dicklyon didn't take the hints about curbing his behavior and has now extended this dispute into other articles and talk pages. At this point I'm giving him a one week ban from Eric Lerner and its talk page. I've also warned him that following editors, making personal comments and engaging in other pointy or disruptive behavior will likely lead to being blocked from editing. Shell   babelfish 00:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, but why doesn't the other guy have to curb his, too? Dicklyon (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Because yours is the only behavior that's been problematic. If you're confused about that, you may wish to re-read the above discussions again.  Shell    babelfish 02:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I get it that you see it that way. Obviously, I don't.  SA's behaviours continue to collect lots of evidence of abuse at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science/Evidence, and he has aggressively pushed his POV, which is what has led to my pushback; I haven't done anything not provoked by him (and sure I agree I shouldn't let him provoke me, but I did). Dicklyon (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, in your Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements/Shell_Kinney/Questions_for_the_candidate, you answered that "I would recuse myself from any case that involved ... ScienceApologist."  Is that statement no longer operative?  Dicklyon (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that if you re-read the list of arbcom appointees, you will find that Shell Kinney did not become an arbcom member. Therefore, her statement about what arbcom cases she would recuse herself from if she became an arbcom member is completely irrelevant to the present situation. Cardamon (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you for that clarification. I see that she is acting as an ordinary admin, not as an arbcom member, and this arbcom enforcement action is not an arbcom case, so the fact that she has a prior history of siding with ScienceApologist in content and policy disputes does not prevent her from siding with him again now.  I will respect her ban from the Eric Lerner article and talk page, even though I'm itching to respond to the latest... Dicklyon (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * fact that she has a prior history of siding with ScienceApologist - OMG if you believe this canard then you need to do some more reading then... Shot info (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Slowly removing foot from mouth ... yeah, I see her history with SA is not what I first interpreted. In fact she posted an eloquent description of his behavior on Eric Lerner that is as true today as it was two over two years ago: Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience;  so I'll just have to accept that for some reason she found my edits to be more disruptive than his this time. Dicklyon (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

SPA on Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family


User Exxess, a single-purpose account, is engaging in much incivility at Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (2nd nomination) (now at Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (2nd nomination - voided)). This is just the first of many rambling, uncivil post against me and other editors he has made there. Per Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, I ask that he is placed on restriction, and if he continues with violating WP:NPA and turning this AfD into a battleground, appropriate sanctions are taken. It is also possible that he had and is engaging in sock puppeting and vote stacking (both AfDs he took part in saw votes from IPs and other SPAs), see Suspected sock puppets/Exxess. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note that I took the highly unusual step of voiding the 5-day old discussion at Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (2nd nomination - voided)) because of the highly toxic uncivil rant that it had become. Within hours of re-opening a fresh discussion page, the party named above came to the new discussion and began another rant of uncivil accusations; these accusations were not aimed at any one editor, so perhaps he was trying to be better.  I found it necessary to take the hghly unusual step of censoring him  by redacting a portion of his statement.  I do not think that admins should (or should have to) void consensus-forming discussions or redact statements in them; but this user's conduct made these steps necessary to allow the process to proceed.  I am not familiar with the Digwuren case, but if it is indeed related, and this is a user who can not conduct himself properly in the project, then I would support the application of more stringent sanctions on him./her.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've notified him of the editing restriction. If there are further problems, then I'll give him a short block. PhilKnight (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My so-called incivility has nothing to do with anything above, and I resent unproven accusations of sockpuppetry and vote stacking. This first deletion nomination failed fair-and-square because the users voting could see the inherent notability of the subject.  This is in regards to a peculiar family of immemorial nobility.  Immemorial nobility in the 18th century represented 5% of the population:


 * SEE: http://books.google.com/books?id=MnwmMOWK-PsC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136


 * That alone makes them notable, but, furthermore, the article on nobility states the term originally meant those who were known or notable.


 * How one argues the obvious is beyond me, hence my so-called "incivility"; but, the administrator Piotrus above seems to have framed the debate in terms of myself being some champion of an upstart noble family seeking fame and glory on Wikipedia. This is coming from an administrator, Piotrus, with two arbitration cases against him.


 * Yes, I will concede the original article had surmountable problems, but the subject is notable, proof being the third-party sources who took the time to research and publish their findings, books I found widely available in libraries. I've provided a summary of their work on Wikipedia. -- Exxess (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The question of whether the article subject is sufficiently notable for inclusion isn't dealt with on this page. If necessary you could file a request at deletion review. PhilKnight (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

De-azerbaboonifier


New user De-azerbaboonifier has created St. Sargis of Gag in relation to a dispute over at Qazakh Rayon. This is very likely to be the same person as as raised recently at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive501. Whoever this is, it is an inappropriate username and when used to create articles, I think they should be deleted and recreated by someone with a touch more class.

I am raising it here as the last time it was raised on ANI (see link above) there were suggestions it was a straw-puppet, i.e. a pro-Azeri person doing this to cast the Armenians in a negative light by way of Fear, uncertainty and doubt, which is a brave new twist and a new level of gaming - it is getting quite messy and the stakes are rising. If possible, this needs to be stopped. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Article deleted and account blocked. Jehochman Talk 14:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Pcarbonn and Fringe Science
User:Pcarbonn has been editing (including trolling) the Fringe science arbitration pages. This user was recently banned from editing Cold fusion and related articles and pages for one year.  Cold fusion is a fringe science topic per a RfC.  As the Fringe Science arbitration pages relate to cold fusion, I ask that this user's ban be enforced. --Noren (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the clerks are well aware of the situation and they will take whatever actions are necessary. Perhaps you could address your concerns to them at WP:AC/CN.  I am a party to the Fringe science case. Jehochman Talk 16:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, we are very reluctant to interpret bans as disallowing participation in Arbitration and elections - and the topic ban is not clearly all fringe science, but is more likely things closely related to cold fusion.--Tznkai (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Poeticbent


As a result of this case Poeticbent was subjected to this remedy:

Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary

This remedy was supposed to prevent repetition of the violations stated in this FoF Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision, namely Poeticbent has treated Wikipedia as a battleground.

So far this remedy was not enforced and as a result we have: WP:BATTLE, WP:AGF, not to mention grave MOS violations: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Jewish_violence_in_Poland,_1944%E2%80%931946&diff=262648618&oldid=262627536 Is that an invitation to the usual POVed revert war? It must be...] and personal attacks like this. Enforcement of this remedy is urgently required so that content dispute resolution based on dialogue and rational arguments would be possible. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the rant in the template, as that's clearly not on, but otherwise this isn't at emergency level. Is Durova mentoring Poeticbent? If so then please forward all future complaints to her. Moreschi (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If Durova is an official mentor, when indeed we can consider this issue closed. Could anyone confirm this? M0RD00R (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no problem here, other then MORDOOR trying to use the ArbCom remedy, twisting its intent, in order to prevent his opponent from being able to revert him. I'd like to advise MORDOOR not to revert war.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Piotrus. Could you mind taking a look at what I've been asking here? All I've asked is that mentor would be assigned to Poeticbent. It is no fancy of mine, it is an official ArbCom decision which for unknown reasons is not implemented yet. When Durova, showed signs of interest in this case, I have clearly stated that, I consider this matter closed, and from now on I will address all my concerns to her. If you would think that my interaction with Durova would "prevent my opponent from being able to revert me", well you have a right to your opinion. Anyway this thread went straight to Drama Alley. Boooooooring.
 * P.S. What should I do with Poeticbent's evidence, should I respond to that, or what? I think it speaks for itself better, especially all this " this was removed because it painted Poles in a positive light", that was reverted " because is spoke of food shortages" stuff, anyway if anyone will be interested, surely I can present a brief deconstruction of the events that happened lately, but still I think that my position is explained on relevant talk pages, if that's not enough, let's go by WP:IAR and start content dispute here. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Response by Poeticbent
Could someone please point out to the user who filed this report without notifying me about it, that frivolous use of WP:AN/AE noticeboard for the purpose of trying to gain an upper hand in an ill-fated edit war, is unacceptable? Beginning January 2nd, User:M0RD00R with User:Malik Shabazz have removed every single one of my many impartial contributions to articles (including all scholarly references linked to Google Books), in order to foster their own highly inflammatory political agenda based on ethnic divisiveness. – Understandably, my stress level has gone through the roof, because no Wikipedian can do anything of value in such toxic environment.

Examples of repeat removal of book references, in order to prove a POV
 * 1) new paragraph with 2 book references removed by M0RD00R because it painted Poles in a positive light
 * 2) same new paragraph and book-links removed by Malik Shabazz
 * 3) same paragraph reverted by Malik Shabazz yet once more
 * 4) another paragraph with book citation reverted by M0RD00R because it spoke of Polish compassion for the Jews
 * 5) same paragraph removed again by User:Jayen466 unknown before
 * 6) another background info and book-link reverted by Malik Shabazz because is spoke of food shortages
 * 7) same new info removed by M0RD00R
 * 8) same info about food shortages removed again by M0RD00R
 * 9) blind, blanket revert by M0RD00R of my three consecutive edits with several new book references
 * 10) more background info reverted by Malik Shabazz for the same reason
 * 11) another background info with new book reference reverted by M0RD00R because it spoke of WWII annihilation of the Polish people

'''The stalking goes on.... Here's another article I contributed to recently'''
 * 1) here again M0RD00R reverts my new paragraph about 1945 food shortages in Krakow including 2 separate book citations
 * 2) for the second time, M0RD00R reverts my new paragraph with refs about food shortages and instead, adds a quote from a Stalinist Apparatchik - writting to Moscow - about alleged violent attitudes of Poles

Please note, most of my contributions (restored by 2 different users) were repeatedly reverted by M0RD00R and Malik Shabazz with false edit summaries under WP:SYNTH while in fact, the conclusions drawn in quoted books (written by different scholars) are commonly accepted as facts by the scientific community.

P.S.: Keep in mind also that the ArbCom case, mentioned above, is being used by M0RD00R exclusively for the purpose of discrediting my most recent contributions. Although M0RD00R was not found at fault by the ArbCom, he's bound by the decisions reached at Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes because he is an involved party along with Malik Shabazz. Therefore, I suggest that both M0RD00R and Malik Shabazz be presented with some sort of preventive measures for their blanket wheel-warring against 3 Polish Wikipedians including myself, at: Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946 and at Kraków pogrom. --Poeticbent talk  19:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary

In just one week, between January 2nd and January 9, 2009, my laborious and scholarly contributions to Wikipedia requiring prolonged book research have been reverted by M0RD00R eight times and by Malik Shabazz four times… only two weeks after the ArbCom case regarding EE disputes was amended. Apparently, neither of them had learned anything from the three-month-long ArbCom proceedings—which is not surprising—because they did not participate in our discussions at all. It should be noted though that no 3RR rules were broken in their most recent revert wars. An illusion of validity of their actions was being maintained with edit summaries quoting various policy guidelines, however, under close inspection none of them were applicable. Personally, I would not have considered filing a report here at WP:AN. – All I did was to make a symbolic gesture of placing a tag with personalized message atop the article expressing my sense of injustice. I knew that that tag would not stay there for long since everything I did was gone within hours, but that was not what I intended.... Everything I did before was reverted, so naturally also the tag would have been gone in no time. Please consider enforcement of Arbitration Committee decisions reached at Eastern European disputes in the face of their clear violations by both M0RD00R and Malik Shabazz.

--Poeticbent talk  18:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum. Meanwhile, as of this point in time and without my involvement whatsoever, the revert war over the article Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946 goes on, with Malik Shabazz at the centre stage, reverting all other editors' contributions including Piotrus. See: article history. --Poeticbent talk  22:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is all dandy and fine Poeticbent if not one thing. This board is not for discussing content disputes, especially when Your concerns are addressed long time ago at relevant talk page, the same talk page you didn't bother to contribute a single time so far despite being urged by uninvolved editors to do so . But now as Durova is showing signs of interest in this case, I do hope that dialogue will be much smoother from now on. Apparently I have failed to express basic WP policies like WP:SYNTH clearly enough - I thought it was entry level knowledge that if you can reference fact X, and you can reference fact Y, it does not mean that by referencing those two separate facts, you've got referenced complex entity XY. Because in order to prove that XY (not just separate X, and separate Y) indeed exists, you need to provide reference stating "X has a relation to Y, and they go together". Why do we need to go through this every single time, time and time again? It is so freaking simple I thought. But well. Where I have failed, maybe Durova, or any other mentor, that ArbCom decided must be assigned to you, will have more luck. So take care, and see You at Durova's talk page as been advised by Moreschi. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

One short literary deconstruction of one short drama
This is a quick response to this Addenum by Poeticbent. So I ask - Am I the only one missing something? What revert war? Let's cut on the drama OK? Let's look at what happened step by step. Piotrus makes one bad call arbitrarily changing the victims numbers in the lead section without explaining why from 1000-2000 to 1000-1500. Why it is bad call? It is obvious, the lead should summarize the article, and in the article such numbers are given: Cichopek "more than - 1000", Milyakova "1500-1800", and now the best part, Piotrowski "1500-2000", Yes, it is the same Piotrowski, who is used by certain group of editors in every single article on Polish-Jewish relations, same Piotrowski who's "Poland's Holocaust" Piotrus usually cites in almost every single article concerning controversies of the history of the Jews in Poland. It is obvious to me at least that previous summary - 1000-2000 was mainstream, neutral and objective. Piotrus decided to change it? Good it is his right. It would have been nice from him to explain his motives, but he has chosen not to, it is also his right. Next edit - Malik pointed to obvious weakness of Piotrus edit by inserting reference and explaining his edit in edit summary. Now where do you see a revert war here? Just normal content development, business as usual. Now interesting part begins. Anon from Warsaw jumps in reverts Malik, removes reference inserted by him, without no edit summary whatsoever. And that is pure revert warring. Malik was absolutely right to revert this disruptive edit, and does it explaining his motives in edit summary again. If any of admins watching this board, have any problems with this edit, they are free to revert it, and they surely will do it, if they will find Malik's edit totally inapropriate, but I don't think that there will be one. There's no edit warring in this case whatsoever, so please let's make a cut on the drama department. Enough with the drama already. Cheers. P.S. all this has nothing to do with this board, let's start using relevant talk pages for content disputes, drama classes etc. For crying out loud. M0RD00R (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mordoor, please leave your personal opinion of Piotrowski to yourself. And please, his name is Piotrowski, not Piotrkowski. At least learn this. Tymek (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One may wonder if such comments about an estabilished scholar don't fall under WP:BLP...? After all, Greg was banned after a series of strongly worded opinions about some other scholars... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Further Discussion
Is anyone other than Poeticbent and M0RD00R actually reading this thread? It is very much to long didn't read for me, and its quickly approaching "block both for a week" status.--Tznkai (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocking is boring. How about giving me a mentor and not for a week, how about a month? And not just a mentor, a good ol' skool bad-ass mentor with no bullshit approach. A mentor to whom I will have to explain every single edit I make if it is happened to be found dubious, and if I due to make any revert, I will need to report to him beforehand, so he could evaluate if it is justified? Sounds better than block to me. Anyway if is impossible to get a mentor by ArbCom decision, can at least a man get one out of his own free will.M0RD00R (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose blocking Poeticbent who is a constructive editor and author of over 50 DYKs and several GAs. If he is harassed by certain editors, perhaps because he made a mistake of revealing his real name, should make the solution quite clear. That said, I do think that mentorship for both editors - neither of whom is known for being overly disruptive on their regular days - is highly recommended. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What on Earth's Poeticbent's real name has to do with this lame drama above? How does his real names explain WP:POINTish article defacements with clearly inappropriate templates like this ,, what on Earth real name has to do with WP:SYN issues, that were pointed not just by M0RD00R and his "tag team members" but by uninvolved editors as well . BTW if real name is your concern, how about Malik's name that is constantly being dragged by Poeticbent . Absolutely vile personal attacks by Poetic were ignored by ArbCom, but now I frankly have had it with all this ["His tag-team members include Jayjg routinely abusing his admin powers for example, by reverting content opponents using Twinkle; and of course, M0RD00R, account created exclusively for the purpose of political smear campaigns", M0RD00R at the center stage with his political tag-team members, M0RD00R and his tag-team member Malik Shabazz crap. I am not a part of Jayjg's tag team, I'm not a part of Malik's tag team, I have never met those people, I have never e-mailed them, I have never asked them for any favours, I don't even recall having any person-to-person conversation with them be it wiki, off-wiki, IRC or whatever. Regarding mentorship - Poeticbent's mentorship is not " highly recommended" as you put it. It is an official ArbCom remedy that, has not been implemented yet. Just a quick reminder:

Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.
 * Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strangely enough, I have a feeling that you are a part of a Malik-Jayjg tag team, no matter if you have talked personally to them, or not. Tymek (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Ombudsman and tendentious editing against consensus


Ombudsman was placed on permanent probation for agenda-driven editing of medical-related articles. There was a prolonged discussion of the Cure Autism Now article that resulted in a decision to merge and redirect. Ombudsman tried to act against consensus and undo this redirect several times during this period, but seem to let it go. Today, he started up again, undoing the redirect  and de-archiving the talk page to make new remarks on old threads. Suggest a topic ban and/or a block to remedy the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was contacted regarding this situation. I declined to take administrative action given prior content disagreements with Ombudsman and suggested to Beeblebrox that he bring the case here. That said, I completely support a page ban in this instance. Ombudsman's editing has consistently been tendentious and agenda-driven since the ArbCom finding, but he generally hops around from page to page and edits infrequently enough that pursuing individual page bans is generally more trouble than it's worth. In this case, Ombudsman is repeatedly undoing a merge which had a broad talkpage consensus. Check the typical edit summary here. This is the sort of thing that the probation was designed to prevent. MastCell Talk 06:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As a matter of best practice, please notify a user when they've been brought up on any administrator's noticeboard. (Notification done). I'm reviewing the complaint now.--Tznkai (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh - I probably should've done, but for some reason I feel unwelcome at User Talk:Ombudsman (,, [, ). [[User:MastCell|MastCell]] Talk 07:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You or Beeblebrox, or anyone else - not a huge deal.--Tznkai (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidently, Beeblebrox was not merely leveraging the questionable behavior of a former incarnation of the ArbCom to divert attention from collaborative production of encyclopedic content. It brings into question the assumption of Beeblebrox's good faith, when he heads straight over here crather than discussing the matter on the CAN article talk page, since he has gone beyond merely diverting attention from editing by lunging provocatively into the realm of procedural meddling.  In the first place, the previous ArbCom incarnation (several iterations removed) had absolutely no business taking the dubious case of a newbie.  The newbie apparently wanted to safeguard his extremely pov evisceration of the biological psychiatry article.  Since absolutely no effort was made to resolve the npov 'dispute', the former ArbCom was acting against community consensus by accepting a case that lacked even a hint of discussion, just the newbie's unprovoked -- and thus surprising and quite chilling -- threat of seeking ArbCom intervention.  The newbie apparently was overly impressed by involved National Health Service editors, who were attempting to browbeat another editor over an NPOV tag, which the NHS editors provocatively, repeatedly, and quite in error removed.  The ArbCom did admit that the tag was appropriate.  Beeblebrox's redirecting of the CAN article -- within a mere eight minutes -- indicates little or no attention was given to the renewed attention to CAN's historical significance brought about by media focus upon CAN's sponsorship of the premiere of Joey Travolta's Normal People Scare Me; Beeblebrox's reliance upon the questionable and abusive behavior of a long since passed ArbCom incarnation is reminiscent of the newbie's reliance upon pov-pushing  by NHS editors with obvious conflict of interest issues.  The attempt here on this page to leverage a previous ArbCom's abuse of both discretion and administrative sanctions is quite an over-reaction, one evidently bereft of the notion of taking time to think over the situation.  Beeblebrox suggested discussing the redirect, but after an attempt at renewing the discussion was made on the CAN talk page, he removed the discussion via redirect.  Sadly, he has now diverted attention away from editing, an all to common Wiki acculturative experience, as well as closing down discussion of edits on the appropriate CAN talk page.  Ombudsman (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ombudsman, can you try that again with a little less vitriol, assumption of bad faith, content dispute and a whole lot less tl;dr? Also the edit warring done here is particularly unimpressive. Page is protected for the time being while I sort out this mess.--Tznkai (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thus far I am seeing an underdeveloped but extent consensus and excessive stubbornness by Ombudsman on this article - any particular reason you couldn't just work on this in your userspace instead of edit warring? Would it be to much to ask for everyone to stick a fork in this and revisit with cooler heads in a week?--Tznkai (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be fine with me, but I would note that Ombudsman, knowing he was making a change that was likely to be controversial, is the one who should have gone to the talk page before making changes, and that the proper procedure for re-opening archived discussions is to start a new thread with a link to the archive, not to undo the archiving of two month old stale threads and just start adding to them. I don't see the point in splitting this article back off, but if it is to be done it should be discussed at Talk:Autism Speaks, not the inactive talk page of the merged article. The reason I brought this here instead of Ombudsman's talk page should be evident. Whatever he thinks of the ArbCom decision, it exists and has not been rescinded, and this is exactly the type of behavior it was intended to curtail. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BRD would also have been satisfactory in my opinion - but clearly the discussion is lacking - and Ombudsman, the onus is on you to start and continue high quality discussion when your "bold" edit reverted - in this case the Autism Speaks page would have been a much better place for it, and even if that wasn't an issue this comment here doesn't cut it. Wikipedia works by convincing others you're right.--Tznkai (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved admin I saw a comment about this on MastCell's talkpage and looked into the history a little. Both Ombudsman and Beeblebrox were edit warring, but Ombudsman was doing this in defiance of a clear talk-page consensus and in breach of his probation on tendentious editing of medical articles. Unless anybody here objects I will ban him from this article and talk page (now a redirect), and state that any further edit warring on this or other medical articles will bring a lengthy block for disruption. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do object - I want Ombudsman to have at least one more opportunity to respond before we continue discussing sanctions.--Tznkai (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I have to agree with Tim here; the reason folks end up on this page is because they've been given all the warnings and chances in the world. This isn't the forum for handing out additional chances, its for determining whether or not restrictions were broken and if so, giving the appropriate sanction.  Clearly, this was a violation of Ombudsman's restrictions - there's no doubt he's aware that this behavior is unacceptable, so further coddling isn't particularly helpful.  Shell    babelfish 17:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See below.--Tznkai (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, but I expect a clear statement that he will abide by his ArbCom restrictions and avoid edit-warring, otherwise there is little possibility of avoiding similar situations in the future. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Its pretty much what I was looking for myself - or perhaps an argument that could change my mind. Either way, I think any user deserves the chance to be off wiki for a few days and have a chance to make some sort of statement before sanctions are leveled. The immediate problem has been stopped, so I think patience is a virtue here.--Tznkai (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with this in principle, but please consider that Ombudsman's MO has been to disrupt an article for a little while, then drop out of sight for a few days or weeks and pop up and disrupt another article. It's been an effective way of circumventing his probation, in some senses. It doesn't really bother me - I stopped taking him seriously a long time ago, and I generally don't bother reporting his various breaches of probation since it's easier to ignore him. But I don't think it's fair to continually expose innocent users (in this case, User:Beeblebrox) to Ombudsman's abusive editing, when the ArbCom remedy was meant to curtail it. MastCell Talk 19:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, if he doesn't give a satisfactory response on this page within a few days I'll go ahead regardless. From your comment, would you recommend a broader remedy than a ban from a single article - such as a permanent 1RR restriction? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not really a neutral party here, since I've had numerous previous content disagreements with Ombudsman, and I consider that his editing long ago passed the point of being a major net negative to Wikipedia. Simply cleaning up the huge walled garden of abusive POV forks he created on autism and vaccines required an extensive time/effort commitment from User:Eubulides. That said, I think a broad topic ban from articles relating to vaccines and autism would be most appropriate. I would suggest that he be restricted to talk pages in those areas, and subject to further sanctions if he abuses that leeway. I know this sounds relatively harsh, but the track record here more than justifies it. If his editing were slightly more concentrated in time, I think he'd long ago have been banned. Perhaps relevant is the fact that he was banned by Jimbo Wales at one point; he was unbanned because vouched for him (!) and out of a "desire to show forgiveness where possible". That's my 2 cents, again as an explicitly involved editor. MastCell Talk 20:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading Articles for deletion/Frequency of autism and looking at this editor's previous actions I'm now leaning towards an indefinite block. This editor has no ability to work constructively with other editors, no understanding of the requirements of the NPOV policy and has had a second chance and blew it. Why waste more of everybody's time? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe he can edit constructively in other areas. I'm imposing a topic ban on all pages relating to vaccinations and autism, broadly speaking. In addition to a 3 week long block.


 * God, I'm getting old. Even a few months ago I would have permabanned this guy...ah well. It gives him a chance to edit in areas where WP:TIGERS won't get in the way. If he doesn't take it we can just ban him. Moreschi (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an article and talk page ban then? And the 3 week block is a bit over the top if you're going to topic ban him.--Tznkai (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, both article and talk page. I'm fed up with talkpage flamers who waste everybody's time with pointless wittering: that detracts from the encyclopedia indirectly just as much as edit-warring does directly. I suppose the block is not strictly necessary, but you never can be too harsh with people like this, otherwise they never get the message that we're not bullshitting and this really is their last chance. Moreschi (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call, but since I'm getting both old and cynical, I'll be surprised if this is the last we hear from him. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Naturally it won't be, but the next step is obvious. Moreschi (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Update
I've received now two e-mails from Ombudsman, which were a little insulting towards me, and a long rant about autism, censorship, authority studies, and the great MastCell/ArbCom/Jimbo cabal. I pushed for Ombudsman to be heard before sanctions, and while that didn't happen, I'm still rather unimpressed that this sort of thing is the only communication that Ombudsman will give. Considering the nature of the e-mail (which I will share with Ombudsman's permission), I'm recommending an indefinite topic ban on any medical article that MastCell has ever edited, both because of the directly preventive nature (Ombusdman has shown his tendency to be disruptive when MastCell is within metaphorical sight) and the indirectly poetic nature of the ban. Maybe now, Ombudsman and others will learn: long rants about how editors are to blame for all your faults will do nothing but bring holy hell on your own head.--Tznkai (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Abtract v Alastair again


I note that Abtract adopts an appropriate method here in a number of significant ways: All these three basics are unprecedented in the editing of Abtract (and Ilkali) in their interactions with Alastair, and are a refreshing change for the better. Unfortunately, it will be noted that the edit still includes a personal attack on Alastair, and ignores answers already provided by Alastair—uncivil characteristics of the vast majority of all posts by Abtract (and Ilkali) over a period of close to nine months. Additionally, ArbCom have asked Abtract to edit anywhere he likes at Wikipedia, just not in places that interact with Alastair. Abtract's edit above breaches the standing arrangement. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) he uses the talk page before editing
 * 2) he actually attempts to make a case
 * 3) he actually cites a source.


 * And some more. There's no rush to deal with this, soon I'll just start reverting as required. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Background: Alastair's first (of 344) edits (and 64 talk page posts) at this article was at 19:04, 25 October 2007.
 * Abtract's first (of 11) edits (and 15 talk page posts) at this article appears at 05:07, 23 November 2008. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Alastair, you hadn't edited the article since the 18th - both you and Abtract had been involved in editing the article before that. This doesn't seem at all like the earlier problems, especially given Abtract's use of the talk page. You're also really reaching to call that a personal attack or claim that its any kind of interaction with you. Since you're also under restriction from the same case not to make assumptions of bad faith, you're skirting dangerously close to a block of your own. Go edit productively; stop worrying so much about Abtract. Shell   babelfish 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a pretty obvious violation of Abtract's restrictions. Looie496 (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's over the line. Since the last two week long blocks don't appear to have made the point, I'm going to make this block two weeks in length.  Shell    babelfish 02:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both Looie and Shell for looking into this, and ArbCom for providing a simple system to deal with things.
 * You're quite right too Shell, actually, other than interacting with Abtract, I've hardly touched that article for a year. I don't even maintain it much because there are quite a lot of others who watch the page and revert obvious vandalism.
 * However, what is less obvious to casual passers by is that I'm very deliberate in my contributions at Wiki. I keep them mainly to supporting the work of friends, new additions, or maintenance where there is steady erosion (rather than obvious vandalism), for predictable emotional rather than source-driven reasons.
 * The last is the kind of work that Abtract, Ilkali and others have been seeking to undermine by lobbying to poison the well. Unless one is willing to become familiar enough with the content issues, some of which are abstract, and occasionally counter-intuitive, all that it looks like is a petty squabble or personality clash. Indeed, that is all comes down to in regard to objections raised to screen the erosive edits that still continue.
 * There are still several issues associated with this case needing attention. The discussion and actions above are an appreciated donation of time that should hopefully play a part in resolving that unfinished business, when I have time myself to give it priority again. Once again, thanks. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Need some other opinions - Abtract appears to be indicating that he has no intention of abiding by the ArbCom restrictions that prohibit him from any contact with Alastair.  At this point, there doesn't appear to be much left but to indef block Abtract's account until such time as he's willing to play ball.  Any thoughts?  Shell    babelfish 19:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't like that idea, but I do appreciate others being involved in this. Abtract normally makes quality contributions. I think keeping things low key is good, but I've never looked into the Collectonian thing. I'd rather Abtract was approached by calm, neutral people using reason (and some good humour) than by demonstrations of "force". But such things are time consuming. I'll stay out of the Abtract question, I'll have other matters to raise later. Best regards, Alastair Haines (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, if Abtract is intent on playing the martyr, there is nothing we can do to stop him. The ball is firmly within his court - there is no administration intervention that will fix this situation. He will either decide to attempt something productive, or he can continue to violate restrictions, leaving administrators with the unpleasant choices of blocking him, or essentially throwing out the relevant arbitration. There is nothing from Abtract's behavior that leads me to believe that any sort of reasonable compromise is available - all compromises require Abtract to accept his own agency, fault, and the validity of the authority (or at least viewpoint) of the larger community funneled through ArbCom and editors acting as administrators. I have no reason to believe that Abtract is worth the effort of bending and breaking the community will around to keep - rest assured I think no one deserves that. So, in summary: we're just going to keep blocking him unless someone thinks of a better idea or otherwise "gets through" to him.--Tznkai (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC) (I used the male pronoun out of habit - feel free to correct if needed)
 * While I think you present the practical reality accurately and concisely here, I feel the need to defend Abtract.
 * The ball is not in his court, it is in the court of those who have accepted accountability to the community (which includes Abtract), to think, and document that thinking, in the course of acting on its behalf for the improvement and maintenance of the encyclopedia.
 * Abtract is utilizing whatever means available to him to voice a criticism. Instead of his criticism being answered, he is being silenced. As regards his implicit criticism of the process that seeks to silence him without engaging with the substance of his explicit criticisms and without involving the whole community, I think he has a point. As regards his explicit criticisms of me, I believe it is trivially obvious that those can be seen to be completely without substance by reasonable members of the community. But this is precisely what has not been done.
 * Currently, Wikpedia is publishing slanderous posts about Alastair Haines of Bankstown, Sydney, Australia. Abtract firmly endorses this. However, naturally he is surprised that when he posts additional material in the same vein, he is being blocked for doing so, because those who are being trusted by the community to prevent this sort of thing are continuing to publish this very material themselves.
 * Abtract is indeed a martyr. He is doing everything possible to alert people to an inconsistency that indeed needs resolution. Yet instead of dealing with this, people are trying to hide the issue by silencing it. It is completely normal and human and the best professional organisations do it from time to time. How much more would we expect it to happen in a community constrained in its avenues of communication and comprised of generous untrained volunteers with little authoritative mandate?
 * But, on the other hand, Abtract is no matyr. Anonymous users blocked from contributing lose nothing, they gain time for their real lives, untroubled by anything that may have been said about them, which is completely divorced from their real life identity. Wikipedia can lose if people who would otherwise be contributing what donors support the Foundation to produce cease that contribution. That seems to need serious consideration. If we are willing to accept donations, we need to accept there is an accountability to donors to be acting consistently with what we promise to them. Abtract is a valuable contributor, not merely an anonymous username. We want to retain his quality and voluntary contributions. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Martinphi
On User talk:Martinphi/interviews, Martinphi is attempting to editwar to make sure that people viewing the page are able to find Scienceapologist's real name. Martinphi is under various restrictions, including an Arbcom case Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist, and subsequent agreements sorted out on various boards extending this and trying to keep the two of them apart. Notably Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi places even stronger restrictions on Martin as regards Scienceapologist.

WP:OUTING calls for the blocking of any user attempting to out another user. Martinphi is aware of what he is doing, he participated in a discussion about it here.

I have asked for the page Martin is using to out Scienceapologist to be speedy deleted - it is a copy of interviews archived elsewhere.

Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On it. Will post on ANI shortly--Tznkai (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Handled (for now). See Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents and my original post. This is not an Arbitration Enforcement issue.--Tznkai (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Forsena
Arbcom case: Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. User:Forsena appears to have violated User_talk:Forsena in that he called another editor vandal and extremist [] Gerardw (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's probably worth noting the editor he is commenting about gave a generic level 4 warning before giving a level 4 NPOV warning. That is, the editor in question gave a generic level 4 warning, after specific levels 1, 2 & 3 warnings had been given, that used the word 'vandalize'. However that certainly doesn't justify this comment which is way over the top. I'm inclined to give a 1 week topic ban from articles related to the Balkans. PhilKnight (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am unimpressed by the warning removals, which are probably among the most dysfunctional of responses. Support a week long ban on all articles related to the Balkans and all articles beginning with the letter "A." I'll pick an additional letter each time there is a violation.


 * Not sure if I'm joking about that either.--Tznkai (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement RfC
The Arbitration Committee has opened a Request for Comment regarding arbitration enforcement, including a review of general and discretionary sanctions. All editors are encouraged to comment and contribute. The Committee will close the RfC one month from its opening. After the closing, the Committee intends to formalize reform proposals within one month.

For the Committee, Vassyana (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Alastair Haines
Alastair is under the effect of a 1RR restriction, as stated here. He has violated said restriction on Gender of God, reviving the dispute that led to the Arbcom case after weeks of dormancy:
 * 1st
 * 2nd
 * 3rd
 * 4th
 * 5th

Ilkali (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Addition: It seems Alastair is also edit-warring on Gender and religion. Ilkali (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It will be noted that the motion against Ilkali reverting me is still awaiting confirmation.
 * Had it already been passed, Ilkali's persistant removal of stable, sourced text without talk page discussion, without any prior consensus and contrary to the explicit statements of three editors, could have been actioned as it ought to be.
 * Despite the flagrant prior actions of Ilkali in removing the Oxford Dictionary, despite protests, including several by uninvolved editors to both ArbCom and administrators, have not been actioned by others after being given ample time to do so, it's fairly obvious that responsibility is being left to me.
 * It is also the case that another editor has been following Ilkali's bad example of wilfully removing sourced text without discussion at Gender and religion; however she seems to have desisted, so I don't see any need to consume other people's time to handle her misbehaviour when she is sensibly willing to self-correct.
 * Finally, it is worth mentioning that the Foundation is continuing to publish slander posted by Abtract and Ilkali in a number of places accessible to people with professional relationships to my real life identity, despite repeated requests by myself to have this matter attended to. I am still awaiting email contact for it to be addressed in a convenient amicable fashion. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no outstanding motion against me, the article's talk page contains pages of discussion, and your accusations of slander have no relevance to this report (and have already been dismissed at Arbcom, with an urging that you stop using legal-sounding language). We're here because you violated your restriction, something that almost lead to you being banned recently. Are you again declaring that you will wilfully ignore your 1RR?
 * Lastly, I will point out that you are also under civility parole and ask you to AGF.Ilkali (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alastair Haines blocked for 48h for edit warring. I'll look into the rest of the (more complicated) allegations later today.--Tznkai (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Marshal Bagramyan
is edit warring and making incivil comments about other users. On the article Nakhichevan khanate he made 3 rvs within the last 2 days, replacing the source that he does not like with the Armenian source that he likes more. In the last revert he calls the edit by another user "vandalism", which of course it was not. And comments like this are nothing unusual for this user: Here are some other examples of the language he uses in discussion with other editors. This user has been officially warned for edit warring before:  According to the ruling of arbitration case Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. I suggest that MarshallBagramyan is placed on supervised editing for repeatedly failing to adhere to expected standards of behavior. Grand master  06:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My arguments can be found on the talk page of said article. I tried reasoning, in vain, with all three editors who consistently and blindly reverted my edits as well as the content and reliable, secondary source they were based on. Grandmaster, Atabek, who has already banned from editing on certain Nagorno-Karabakh related articles, as well as the sudden appearance Dacy69 essentially engaged in an edit war where they argued in giving extra weight to a primary source, which itself is unacceptable as stated on Wikipedia's own page "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves" and "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources ." The primary source fails in all contexts to meet these guidelines.


 * Note that users such as Atabek have had an extensive history in distorting, manipulating and falsifying source material (see the talk pages of Khachkar destruction in Nakhchivan, Movses Kaghankatvatsi, Sahl Smbatean, etc.) to the point where he was banned from editing those articles entirely. My warnings went unheeded, and I naturally reverted all edits that, in effect, vandalized and suppressed the information on that article. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to discuss the content issues here. Whether Griboyedov, a prominent Russian writer and politician, is primary or secondary source, there's no reason to replace his opinion with the opinion of the Armenian scholar Bournatian. Wikipedia must provide not just the opinion of the Armenian side, but all existing points of view, and inclusion of Griboyedov is certainly not vandalism and does not excuse incivil language and edit warring by you. You know that the admins recommended editors in AA related articles to voluntarily stick to 1RR:, yet you repeatedly chose to edit war much in excess of 1RR limit, unlike all others. I believe it is time that arbitration ruling is imposed, as you took no notice of prior official warnings. Grand  master  06:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The edits by Marshal Bagramyan seem to be intended to remove material from the article that enjoys widespread circulation amongst anti-Armenian propaganda deriving from Azerbaijan. The claim by Azerbaijan is, basically, that every Armenian came from somewhere else, and thus they have no rights to any territory whatsoever (even the territory of the republic of Armenia). It's an odious and deeply racist theory that is genocidal in nature and which has no basis in historical fact. However, sources are distorted and selectively quoted to support it. Similar distortion and selective quoting was going on in that article. Marshal Bagramyan has not exceeded the three revert rule, and, considering the unpleasant ideological material that he has been trying to remove from the article, his three reverts and his talk page comments were fully justified. But for future additions or changes to the article's content, it would be best if they are worked out in the article's talk page. Meowy 21:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

George Bournoutian is an excellent and unique expert on the subject and a good third-party source. Marshal Bagramyan is entirely right by including him. Grandmaster is trolling and avoiding consensus-building here and in on Nagorno Karabakh. Capasitor (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not about inclusion or deletion of Bournoutian. No one ever removed him. This is about edit warring by Marshall, who made 3 rvs within the last 2 days. I hope the admins will finally review this report. Grand  master  05:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You should go shop around more, looks like Moreschi has better things to do. VartanM (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no one disputes the inclusion of Bournoutian, it's about exclusion of Griboyedov. If MarshallBagramyan is truly dedicated to spirit of neutral editing, he should not be removing one reference for another, but keep one and add another, which Grandmaster and myself did in our edits. Those are my two cents relevant to the topic. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 08:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And there was no need to make 3rvs to remove Griboyedov and replace him with Bournatian. All the views must be presented, and edit warring is not helpful at all. Grand  master  08:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And distortions and selective quoting of Griboyedov should not be presented. The article has a number of issues, issues which will be best resolved in its talk page. Given that the 3RR was not broken, the reverts took place in a relatively quiet article, and the reverting has stopped, this complaint is starting to sideline discussions which could lead to the article's improvement. Meowy 16:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article issues are being resolved on its talk page, the one who removes existing reference replacing it with Bournoutian only is MarshallBagramyan. So reverting page 3 times in 2 days indicates the unwillingness of the editor to abide by discussion on the talk page. Atabəy (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Another rv by Marshall, this time removing 2 third party sources contradicting the claims of Armenian historian Bournatian: This is his 4th rv within one week. As I understand, the request to stick to voluntarily 1 rv per week on AA topics is no longer valid. Then everyone else can feel free to make as many rvs as Marshal.  Grand  master  07:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster and Atabek: Blind reverting or Abusing AE board with frivolous report
Grandmaster and Atabek apparently didn't learn that reading what they were reverting is a serious requirement. Last time around they were banned from Shusha pogrom article and its talkpage for 4 weeks for not reading what they were reverting. This time, the two repeatedly accused MarshallBagramyan of removing the Griboyedov source (Grandmaster   ), (Atabek  ), but if one looks at the "evidence" they provided, its clear that the source was never removed. This can mean only two things, either they never looked at what they were reverting or they intentionally lied and made a false report to get MarshalBagramyan sanctioned. Both are a serious matter and unacceptable in wikipedia. I hope this matter is dealt accordingly. VartanM (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said that Marshal removed Griboyedov, I said he replaced his opinion with the opinion of Bournoutian, an Armenian scholar. No need to distort my words. Griboyedov never uses the word "repatriation", but when reading the present version of the article one gets the impression that he does, because of distortion of the sources by Marshal. In addition, Marshal completely deleted 2 secondary sources by his latest, 4th revert in that article. Of course, an attempt to present position of Bournoutian as a fact and suppress any other points of view is not in line with WP:NPOV. Grand  master  05:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that in his latest post Marshal calls my edits vandalism and threatens me that he and his friends will be edit warring to suppress any alternative points of view, if I try to include them. These are his words: You vandalize the article, and I and other users will revert you; we're well within our limits and it's as simple as that. Is this sort of battleground approach acceptable? Grand  master  05:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're going to deny it? I'll quote you. You seem to prefer the word replace as appose to remove. The definition of replace is "substitute a person or thing for another".


 * And there was no need to make 3rvs to remove Griboyedov and replace him with Bournatian
 * replacing the source that he does not like with the Armenian source that he likes more
 * Marshall, you cannot replace the source you do not like with the one that you like more.
 * Do not replace Griboyedov, an eye witness of the process, with Bournatian.
 * In sum, please keep all the sources there, and do not replace one with another.


 * And I don't want Atabek to feel left out.


 * Edit summary: rv no sufficient justification for removal of Griboyedov reference, why should you remove a contemporary reference to justify your point any way?
 * I think both opinions should be equally cited instead of removing one for another.
 * it's about exclusion of Griboyedov
 * he should not be removing one reference for another, but keep one and add another
 * the one who removes existing reference replacing it with Bournoutian only is MarshallBagramyan.

--VartanM (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really get your point. As I explained above, Marshal removed the opinion of Griboyedov and replaced it with the opinion of Bournoutian. So yes, there's no need to replace Griboyedov's words with words of the Armenian source, even if you keep the reference to Griboyedov. The above does not excuse 4 rvs by Marshal, and especially the last one, where he removed 2 third party sources: In any case, I hope you are not going to deny that Marshal made 4 rvs within the last week, and threatens that he will continue to do so, if I try to make edits that he does not like?  Grand  master  07:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See here for example, this rv by Marshal with incivil edit summary, where he calls edit by Atabek "vandalism": One can see that the words of the Russian envoy are replaced with the words of the Bournoutian, while the previous edit provided both points of view. And this is the last rv by Marshal, when he removed the references to 2 third party sources, Thomas De Waal. Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War. NYU Press, 2004. ISBN 0814719457, 9780814719459, p. 151, and Charles King. The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus. Oxford University Press US, 2008. ISBN 0195177754, 9780195177756, p. 159:  And he says that if I continue to "vandalize" the article by using the sources that he does not like, he will continue reverting and get the others to help him.  Grand  master  07:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is, you and Atabek repeatedly accused Marshall of removing Griboyedov, when in fact Griboyedov was never removed. As I said on Moreschi's talkpage this is the lowest you have ever gotten. I didn't expect this from you. I'm very disappointed. VartanM (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be good if you stopped twisting my words. I said that Marshall replaced the words of Griboyedov with the words of another source, and made 4 rvs to keep it like that. In his last rv, Marshall removed 2 third party sources. I don't think that you can deny that he indeed made all those rvs. If you think that such edit warring is acceptable, I beg to differ. Grand  master  08:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You repeatedly implied that Marshall replaced Griboyedov with Armenian source (we'll get to that letter). I'll quote you again, You can not ran away from your own words.
 * there was no need to make 3rvs to remove Griboyedov and replace him with Bournatian
 * --VartanM (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So? Yes, he was replacing the words of one source with the words of another. How does this make my report frivolous? Do you deny all the reverts by this user? You are trying to divert attention from edit warring by Marshall. Please stop it. Grand  master  09:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Argh. I'm looking at this now. Moreschi (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's clear as a day that MarshallBagramyan's reverting history is more extensive on the page in dispute, it's also the fact that he deliberately removes legitimate sources that don't fit his POV, and that VartanM's aim in opening this part of the thread is to divert attention from those facts. Atabəy (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't blame me for "changing" Griboyedov's words because there are no quotations to tell the reader which ones were his! If you don't place quotations, that's called plagiarism. Frivolous indeed.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Formal 1RR per week for Marshal. Dacy69 is permabanned, as he's been wasting everyone's time for way too long. Back to the talkpage, stick to 1RR and try to work out some form of compromise, people...Moreschi (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

=Resolved=

How does one get a restriction lifted?
In 2007, I was subjected to a restriction by Arbcom. How does one move beyond such things?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You request an appeal, contact an Arbitration Committee Clerk for assistance if you would like, but not me, I'm an "involved" editor on abortion.--Tznkai (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are. Okay, I'll go chase down an arbcom clerk.  Thx.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User:John Hyams and Israel-Palestine articles
While these are under general sanctions and a general source of WP:DRAMA etc, some of which I have been active in, this particular case is so multi-layered and apparently covered by multiple decisions that I am bringing it straight here.

On Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, User:John Hyams said among other things:

''"You are clearly a Hamas operative on Wikipedia, and this has to be dealt with." ''


 * Soapboxing - *yawn*


 * Using wikipedia as a battlefield - pretty much that is his post. Not a single encyclopedic fact, just aggresive opinion. Pretty much everyone is guity of this at one time or the other, but this was particulary bad faith and unproductive - and needs to be mentioned as part of what is wrong.


 * This is a personal attack - not the worse in the wikipedia sense, but pretty awful even by such lax criteria.


 * This is wanton uncivility that I have never seen on these articles or for that matter rarely in Wikipedia. And I have seen a lot. This is Godwin's Law elevated by orders of magnitude.

But much more seriously:


 * This is a legal threat - Hamas is designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the US Department of State. Being its operative is a federal crime. Acussing someone of being its operative is accusing someone of a federal crime. Saying that this has to be dealt with is a threat to follow up on this acussation - althought he sustains that it was meant to mean taking it up with Admins or Arbs - he only did so when confronted. This meets the duck test with straight As.


 * This is libel, in a legal, BLP sense, precisely because of the legal implications.

When confonted by one user in his talk page, he said:

"As I already said on the talk page, "has to be dealt with" is by the Wikipedia administrators or arbitrators. All the rest, regarding his endorsement of Hamas, stands. Stop harassing me."

The user is clearly confrontational and unrepentant.

If this is not the forum, I apologize but I do feel rather strongly that this particular incident is very serious and requires ArbCom's attention, and since one single line create so many issues I was not sure where to go. I would have raised a new ArbCom straight up if it weren't for the fact that there are already discretionary sanctions and plenty of material on these articles.

I think a strong block from editing to show the community's reproach at such wanton behavior, along with oversight of the offending phrase is needed. This has to be punished. People shouldn't be allowed to casually put the security, safety and personal reputation of people at risk in Wikipedia. An in particular, you shouldn't put Wikipedia at risk of legal action, be it by force of copy-vio or legal threat.--Cerejota (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I wrote this, some admin blocked him for one week, after he apparently self-reported. I think this is reasonable, but leaves the oversight issue open. Please do not think I was forum shopping, I simply became aware of the issue after leaving a message for this user because of a tagging thing, and started to write the message, I was not aware of the ongoing discussion at WP:DRAMA --Cerejota (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Myself, I don't think oversight needs to get involved (or that the comment should be interpreted as a legal threat). If you want an oversighter to evaluate the edit, send an e-mail with the diff to oversight-l at lists.wikimedia.org.
 * Separately, it would be nice to get one or two regular AE admins to take a look at the talkpage and article mentioned above. I've reproduced the IP sanctions notice on the talkpage because it seems like most editors were unaware that they applied (notice has been archived by now), but perhaps some individual logged notices are in order? Avruch  T 14:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you consider it a legal threat?
 * As to Oversight, I knew how to request it - however, oversighting is also an arbcom issue and I am explicitly requesting via ArbCom enforcement, because this is a complex case. --Cerejota (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, the sanctions notice was posted multiple times before you last posted it (including by me), and there is an info box on the top of the talkpage with a link to the discretionary sanctions. If editors were not aware (and I do not know how you come to that conclusion) it is not for lack of telling them.--Cerejota (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree the 1-week block was a good call, and I've logged the notification of sanctions. Admins, including those who deal with ArbCom enforcement, don't make decisions regarding oversight - have a look at WP:OVERSIGHT. That said, I gather oversight is mostly used for telephone numbers or addresses, instead of insults or threats. PhilKnight (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Dicklyon and Eric Lerner (again)
I'm not sure what to do. The combativeness is back, and Dicklyon is simply not letting up.

Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive33 for background.

was banned for a week from the article and upon returning immediately went back to his old ways. He is combative, seems to refuse to discuss, and is now engaging in a white-washing campaign to remove sources and context from Eric Lerner that explain to the reader the current and past issues with Lerner's ideas. Despite exhortations from other editors to stop and praise for the way the article was rewritten before he began systematically attacking it again:, it seems that Dicklyon has reasserted his ownership of what is and is not appropriate content. I'll note that he has added absolutely zero to the article since returning from being banned for a week.


 * --> makes a personal accusation that I'm "mistreating" the subject.
 * --> accuses sources written by PhD scientists of being "poor sources", misapplies and wikilawyers BLP concerns, and poisons the well with respect to me AGAIN.
 * --> despite admitting that a mention later "might be okay", he unilaterally removes this mention no matter where it is placed in the article:
 * --> accuses me of "not helping with the problem" and then has the audacity to claim that his edit warring was in response to this! He claims I'm trying to "teach cosmology" and that I'm "debunking".

Then he goes on an edit-warring rampage that I've been trying to deal with:


 * --> First removal of a sourced section of criticism claiming that it is "UNDUE WEIGHT" which orphans a reference: . I revert with the edit summary "I'm sorry, but we need to let the reader know what the current state is. Reorganize, don't delete."
 * --> Dicklyon replies with a high-handed edit summary that claims he is reverting per WP:BRD when in fact he's simply removing content that is not flattering to Lerner's ideas: "When I reverted a bit of your bold re-org, you should have worked to find a way around he objection, not just put it back."
 * --> I try to reintroduce the text with sourcing to other physicists and astronomers who make the same critiques.
 * --> He begins removing sources claiming they aren't "reliable" despite the people writing them having credentials, affiliations, and reputations that far exceed Lerner's in the relevant academic communities.
 * --> Removing another source claiming it isn't "reliable".
 * --> Removed a sourced statement claiming it was "unsupportable". I revert this pointing out that it is supported by the sources:
 * --> Removes a well-sourced contextual critique of Lerner's book that he had moved to a different location earlier.

In short, what's essentially happening is that Dicklyon has been systematically removing sourced critique and context and directly applicable, sourced text that deals with the exposition of Lerner's book while at the same time actively attacking me on the talk page and continuing his campaign to make the editing environment as hostile as possible. I thought he would settle down after a week-long Wikibreak, but he hasn't.

I can't even get a third opinion without having him come in and make vague accusations about the sources being a "pile-on": Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

Help.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The paragraph that got moved and removed is this one:

These critiques have been repudiated by mainstream cosmologists who have also directly criticized Lerner for making errors of fact and interpretation.(ref name=Wright)Wright, Edward L. "Errors in "The Big Bang Never Happened" For example, the size of superclusters is a feature that has been limited by subsequent observations to the end of greatness and explained in the astronomical journals as arising from a power spectrum of density fluctuations growing from the quantum fluctuations predicted in inflationary models. Additionally, the anisotropies were discovered in subsequent analysis of the both COBE and BOOMERanG experiments and were more fully characterized by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.(ref name=Wright)''


 * SA likes to have his "debunking" in there with the description of Lerner's book, to try to teach the reader some cosmology to help them understand what's wrong with Lerner's assertions about the state of cosmology in 1991. Wright and a bunch of other cosmologists are already cited for their negative reactions to the book in the next paragraph.  This heavy-duty debunking  paragraph is essentially off topic, being not about the book or reactions to it.  He insisted on having it between Lerner's premises and the description of the new cosmology that the book argues for.


 * As usual, SA's single-minded SPOV approach to editing "fringe" or "pseudo" science ideas leads to bad articles. The edits that he complains about above by me were all very moderated reactions to his unbalanced approach.  If I have come close to being "disruptive", I would appreciate some feedback from anyone who thinks so, besides him.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * One more thing: the sentence I removed as "unsupportable" was Professional cosmologists and physicists who have commented on Lerner's Big Bang critique have universally repudiated it. This kind of thing is inherently hard to support; I did check the two cited sources, and neither made a claim for the universality of their cricisms.  There has been some discussions, even by Lerner himself, about how conventional cosmologists reject his work, but it's more a classifation tautology:  anyone who doesn't reject his work can't be considered a conventional cosmologist.  Putting this way is just a ruse for saying that only the conventional cosmologists have the right to an opinion; this is the SA's "mainstream" or scientific POV at work.  It does damage to articles on non-mainstream topic to have them presented this way.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please oh please, do not continue your content dispute here. We do not care. SA, since you filed this complaint, could you please link the appropriate Arbitration remedy? I would prefer another admin do the deciding here (I've made workshop proposals in the fringe science case) but I will help do some leg work.--Tznkai (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See this remedy, specifically the log where Dick was warned by PhilKnight and subsequently banned for a week from Eric Lerner by Shell Kinney for continued disruption. Skinwalker (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The appropriate arbitration remedy to me looks like banning Dicklyon from the page for a period longer than one week, since that didn't seem to do the trick the last time. I leave it to an administrator to decide what the appropriate length would be. How do you get a person who refuses to collaborate to collaborate? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, I request that if I have come close to being "disruptive", I would appreciate some feedback from anyone who thinks so, besides SA. I could have come here and complained about his side of the problem, but I didn't; and I didn't let it spill over into other articles; if this is disruptive, tell me. I'm trying to work toward a better article, but he doesn't let it budge much from the version he created.  I'm open to suggestions.  In the mean time, I will hold off editing anything to do with Eric Lerner (I did already add one more commment to the RS/N though, to note that SA had reported me here for my comment there). Dicklyon (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahem. I believe I stated that your poisoning the well against SA was uncalled for. Yes, yes I did. After you wrote "As for rewriting without quotes, I don't disagree that the approach could work. But it would have to be done by someone with a balanced view. If you attempt it yourself, it seems unlikely that it could come out as acceptable," I responded "Do you mind not poisoning the well? It's in incredibly bad taste. Weren't you just banned from this article for behavior exactly like that?" No comment or opinion on the current action/sanction/whatever. Just correcting the record. Hipocrite (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of feedback, I'm going to presume that I'm not close to crossing any line; so I'll go back to editing -- carefully. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This comment was overly personal. I guess another 1 week ban could possibly be justified. PhilKnight (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, if that's too personal, I'll calibrate on that. Thanks.  Dicklyon (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Bit of feedback here since Dicklyon indicated that he thinks a lack of response indicates that he's acting properly. So to state it clearly: Dicklyon, SA's evidence above is a serious concern and you are crossing several lines.  You appear to be, yet again, attempting to whitewash the article with a healthy dose of attacking other editors thrown in for spice.  If you cannot put aside your personal feelings about the subject and abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you'll likely be asked to refrain from any editing on the article.  Personal attacks are right out - try to remain cool even when disagreements arise.  Shell    babelfish 14:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Shell, thanks; but it would really help to know more precisely what I've done wrong. Which of SA's linked complaints above indicate something of a sort that I should avoid?  PhilKnight linked where I said "It is not really appropriate to just call it pseudoscience as an excuse to mistreat it, as ScienceApologist does, and as in the policies he proposes."  I was referring to his well-known methods and his WP:MAINSTREAM proposal and proposed changes to WP:FRINGE (e.g this one) and such.  Should I avoid referring to his POV when trying to prevent him pushing it?  Or just let him push it?  Or what?  Did you even look at what he did there?  Should I be reporting him here, too, like he's doing to me?  And can you show me a diff that illustrates what you mean by "whitewash"?  Or, never mind, as we seem to have converged peacefully, and it may be stable.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone could take a lot at the last day or two of edits and give me some feedback or advice, that would be appreciated. Do we really need to just let SA own the article and have it his way? Or is there a way to move it to be less of his dubunking/SPOV style without being "disruptive"? Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you could stop personalizing the dispute. Attributing a "dubunking/SPOV style" (sic) and assuming bad faith towards another editor isn't going to get you very far.  Comment on the content, not the contributor.  Skinwalker (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure how I became aware of this issue, but I can tell you a couple of thing about Dicklyon: He might seem to have a way that honors his nickname (small joke, haha)... but don't be fooled by either. I, myself, have been in the position of arguing him, and he might be kind of cold, and might seem antagonistic, but once you meet his terms, you realize that a) you have been mentored by the best there is b) the article ended up with great quality.

Dicklyon is an expert on academic writing. When he erases something, the guy knows what he is doing and what is best for the article. He never censors anything, he just erases whatever doesn't work in an academic way. Actually, because it is verifiable and well sourced, I've seen him a lot of times respect a great deal of information I know he personally disagrees with. And that's because he is a very objective editor, as we should all be.

To me, it is also very shameful to have all this ranting about him in this page. I once wrote pretty mean stuff about him in a talk page, and he could have gotten me blocked for a while, but instead, he just erased it and reminded me to keep it cool. That’s what I call good faith.

In conclusion, let me give you my best advise: Don't waste any time confronting and ranting against him (it's just self-defeating), instead, follow his advises and ask him to teach and review you. After a while of doing so, you have my guarantee that you'll become a very skilled writer and editor. --20-dude (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

=Resolved=

QuackGuru 2 week block
It has been requested that I crosslist my recent 2 week block of here, for comment, since it was related to the Martinphi-ScienceApologist and Pseudoscience arbcom cases. The rationale, reasons for and notification of the block can be found here. The block was logged both on the Pseudoscience case here and the Martinphi-ScienceApologist case here. There is also a discussion going on at WP:ANI, which is how I initially became aware of the situation; since then, the block has been discussed, and the consensus seems to be that it was a good block. I open it up for discussion here as well. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 14:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Having looked myself, and seeing QuackGuru's specific history with this article around the time of the AFD, I agree that his actions were problematic. He knew that when last widely tested by the community no consensus existed for merging or redirecting.  Trying again was reasonable.  Alhough discussion first would have been better than being bold, edit warring to redirect was not a reasonable act.  QuackGuru's block log is ample evidence that he has a long standing behavior problem (and the reasons for the blocks show that his problem is specifically in this topic area) and that shorter blocks aren't adequately addressing his problematic behavior.  The question was then whether to ramp up the block duration a notch or to do something more permanent.  Increasing length from one week to two weeks is a reasonable increase in duration, and I'm not inclined to second guess your decision to step up only one notch.  I also agree with your read that the consensus at ANI supports the block.  GRBerry 17:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing to add to my comments at WP:AN/I; I think this is a reasonable use of discretionary sanctions. MastCell Talk 18:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I already said at ANI, I too support the block. --Elonka 18:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Same problems, same area, minor block escalation - I don't see any problems with how this was handled. If this pattern continues though, something other than escalating blocks might need to be tried.  Shell    babelfish 14:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat
The Prem Rawat article has once again descended into petty edit warring. User:Momento appears in breach of multiple revert prohibition while refusing to engage in discussion of pertinent guidelines in respect of WP:EL ArbCom enforcement and uninvolved admin participation is needed if the problem is not once again to become chronic.

Diffs:

Undiscussed revert by User:Pongostick http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265060672

Restored previous version User:Nik Wright2 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265107530

Unjustified revert by User:Momento http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265143535

Restored previous version User: 41.223.60.60 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265151542

Unjustified revert by User:Momento http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265230299

Restored previous version User:Nik Wright2 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265236563

Unjustified revert by User:Momento http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265260427

Restored previous version User: 41.223.60.60 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265283956

Unjustified revert by User:Momento http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265433059

Talk page relevant to above http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265237432

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Some notes, --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Momento was warned before his last revert
 * 2) * Last revert by Momento from the list above 06:00, 21 January 2009
 * 3) * 3RR warning on Momento's talk page less than 24 h. before that revert 10:36, 20 January 2009
 * 4) Relevant ArbCom case: Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat, in particular both remedies: Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat - at least Momento and Nik Wright "...have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest", so the second remedy applies.
 * 5) Suggested application of remedies:
 * 6) *protect or semi-protect article until differences are settled at talk page;
 * 7) *check the edit-warriors' block logs, and apply blocks at least doubling the last blocks these editors had with respect to this page.
 * 8) All above edit-warriors, apart from the initiator of this thread on this noticeboard (Nik Wright), have been notified about this WP:AE thread on their talk page (that is, apart from Nik's general notification at the Prem Rawat talk page at the time of initiating this thread 13:58, 21 January 2009):
 * 9) * User:41.223.60.60 14:07, 21 January 2009
 * 10) * User:Pongostick 17:20, 21 January 2009
 * 11) * User:Momento 17:22, 21 January 2009
 * 12) It might be wise to perform a CU on above involved edit-warriors (although past instances of edit-wars by SPA's, anons and the like never showed any CU linkage)
 * 13) Time-span of the above 9 reverts: 17:15, 19 January 2009 → 06:00, 21 January 2009. Technically, none is a 3RR violation, not even the four reverts by Momento (time span: 33:03 h) - but edit-warring nonetheless I suppose.


 * Note: There'd been a longstanding and (until recently, apparently) quite successful consensus on the talk page to list the official site and nowt else. The site editors sought to include/exclude in the above altercation contains quite a lot of non-BLP-savoury material: http://ex-premie.org/archives/archive.cgi?arch=20010720a#P_6231.1433185576579 etc. Jayen  466  21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's clear that, and some IPs and SPAs have editwarred about the external link http://ex-premie.org in Prem Rawat. On the merits, I think that Momento is right. While I know nothing about Prem Rawat, the website http://ex-premie.org appears to be operated by private persons and dedicated to making allegations against him, including claims of criminal or immoral conduct. It thereby fails EL, which states that "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP or that are not fully compliant with this guideline." However, editwarring is not the appropriate way to resolve such issues.
 * In view of this, as an uninvolved administrator in enforcement of Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat, I am:
 * topic banning Nik Wright2 from Prem Rawat and related articles for one month, and
 * warning Momento that, if he continues to edit-war in order to resolve such issues, instead of requesting appropriate intervention, he may also be sanctioned.
 *  Sandstein  22:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The quoted sentence from EL was edited by admin jossi http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AExternal_links&diff=238171957&oldid=238098782 to protect "his" article Prem Rawat from critical links 89.247.62.105 (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, you seem to be very familiar with the site. If you have an account please log in.  It's a bit troubling to see that assertion about someone who's resigned and retired.  Jossi had his shortcomings, but in every instance we should be careful to substantiate each negative assertion, or else refrain from making it.  Durova Charge! 06:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The editing to WP:EL apparently done by Jossi only emphasised the requirements of WP:BLP. No other editor has seen fit to remove it, and indeed there is no reason for them to do so, as it adds nothing new, only draws timely attention to what has already been agreed. Your suggestion of article ownership by Jossi is grossly unfair and typical of the mudslinging that has become the modus operandi of one side of this dispute. Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:3RR has an exemption to cover deleting material which clearly and actually violates the WP:BLP policy. While the external link in question might not be consistent with WP:EL, its inclusion is not such a clear breach of BLP that violations of 3RR should be tolerated. Regarding exteranl links in Prem Rawat, there has been a consensus to limit them to a single official site since about February, and I encourage the maintenance of that consensus because otherweise there are edit wars like this one. As for Jossi's edit to WP:EL, I personally disagreed with the wording of it because it made no sense (it's absurd to require exteranl links to adhere to Wikipedia's BLP policy, for a number of reasons). Jossi worked out that version, which I still think is too vague and doesn't spell out what is actually prohibited. I don't think it should be relied on in this matter. As for how to handle the immediate situation, I think all parties should be warned to stop fighting over this, and anyone who continues should be topic banned for a significant period, per the ArbCom case.   Will Beback    talk    15:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems abundantly clear to me that the link in question is defamatory. If you believe WP:BLP or WP:EL need improving, the thing to do is hop in and improve them. In the meantime, the "immediate situation" has been handled pretty well, I think. Rumiton (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree - this has been handled competently by Sandstein. PhilKnight (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the statement that "The site is not such a clear violation of BLP". It calls the BLP subject a f*ckhead (in "Best of the forum"), and much else besides. If that isn't a clear BLP violation, I don't know what is. Jayen  466  20:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with ARBCOM member Sandstein's decision in this instance. How can anyone, ARBCOM member or not, make a judgment about a website (or anything else) when they admittedly state they know nothing about the subject, in this case, Prem Rawat? If members of ARBCOM cannot inform themselves about the issues about which they make judgments and decisions, then what good is the ARBCOM committee, or any other Wikipedia "Committee?" I recommend that Sandstein at the very least reconsider and retract this decision by give equal punishment to Momento as s/he gives to NikW2. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Sylviecyn, I think you're confused, Sandstein isn't a member of the Arbitration Committee, he's an administrator who is enforcing the committee's decision. PhilKnight (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. For the purpose of the instant case, it is sufficient to know that Prem Rawat is a living person and that his biography is the subject of an Arbitration Committee remedy. What I meant to say is that I am uninvolved in the drama that seems to have surrounded his article.  Sandstein   20:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I will continue my strong disagreement with your decision anyway, specifically your unfair treatment of doling out punishment to NikW2, when he has never been blocked before for edit-warring, or anything else, so far as I can tell. I would stress to any administrator that they take steps to inform themselves well about a controversial subject and the parties involved before they lower their axes, whiling stating they are uninformed about a subject.  Everything isn't black and white, even on Wikipedia.  Btw, Ex-premie.org has been cited by academics, cult-awareness experts, and information about it has been published in news organs that are considered reputable sources by Wikipedia standards.  I'd also like to note that it was (now retired) Jossi who left under a shadow, that altered the BLP and EL policies in order to disallow this particular link.   Thanks.  Sylviecyn (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this is still going I will inform you that this enforcement action was created from a completely dishonest complaint by Nik Wright2. Nik Wright2 provides an edit summary to justify his complaint that omits three previous insertions of the defamatory link by 3 Anon editors in the three days prior (two of whom have no previous edit history and one who has made unhelpful edits elsewhere) and three reverts of that link. Plus NikWright2 has omitted his own insertion of that link and then he starts his edit summary with Pongostick's revert of Nik Wright2's insert and calls Pongostick's edit "an undiscussed revert" ignoring Rumiton's earlier clear and appropriate talk page message where he explains why the link can't be included. Despite the fact that this link has not appeared in the article for nearly a year and was inserted by a one edit editor Nik Wright2 characterizes its repeated insertion as "Restored previous version " and the reverts as "Unjustified reverts". This gross manipulation of the edit history should be unacceptable but it is no surprise to see Francis Schonken and WillBeback support Nik Wright's complaint. Both have left cautions on my talk page but none on Nik Wright's and, of course, no caution on the Anon editors pages. They make a point to complain about me as often as possible and if that doesn't work they make it up as this exchange shows .Momento (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not supporting Nik's complaint. I am saying that the Arbcom has specifically prohibited edit warring in this topic, due in part to conflicts like this one. A minor violation of BLP is not sufficient to permit edit warring among editors who have already been warned repeatedly to stop (albeit not recently). A mere link is not an egregious BLP violation. Adding "Smith is a fink" to an article is the type of edit that the 3RR exemption is meant to cover. Many suitable ELs contain editorial comments equivalent to calling the subjects "fuckheads". The clearer reason for excluding the link is that it contains significant amounts of copyright violatons in the form of reprinted articles about the subject. To summarize, both Nik and Momento, and any others involved in this, were wrong and should not have edit warred over this link. All involved parties should receive similar topic bans.   Will Beback    talk    23:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that Momento has been blocked 4 times in the past year for edit warring on this same topic. By comparion, NikWright2 has never been blocked. That's one reaosn why topic banning Nik while simply warning Momento (yet again) does not seem equitable. Lastly, I'd remind admins imposing remedies to note them in the log of blocks and bans in the ArbCom case. If Momento is simply getting a warning, which I believe is insufficient, then that should also be logged.   Will Beback    talk    03:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again we have an opportunity to see WillBeBack's bias. I have been blocked a total 6 days in 3 years with over 5,500 edits on one of the most volatile articles on Wiki. And a close look at the blocks will show the first was an appalling sock puppet miscarriage without a usercheck and evidence to the contrary and quickly unblocked, the second was for removing the same derogatory link from the Prem Rawat, the third was initiated by FrancisSchonken and the fourth time was initiated by FrancisSchponken and supported by WillBeBack  and Francis was also blocked. Nick Wright2 has made less than 500 edits and been blocked for a month. This latest issue is typical. WillBeBack and Francis Schonken stand by while a clearly derogatory link is added by anon editors without discussion to the Prem Rawat article and then join in a clearly dishonest complaint about me when I revert it 5 times in 5 days. Something is very wrong here. I should be protected and Francis and Will should be warned to stoop harassing me. And for your info Will "A mere link (to a defamatory site) IS an egregious BLP violation" and should not be tolerated.If you don't want to support Wiki policy it's time you resigned as an Admin.Momento (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Adding a defamatory website link to a BLP seems highly egregious to me, way beyond mere incivility to another editor. There seems to be a double standard at work. Rumiton (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that Momento's and Rumiton's inflammatory language about the ex-premie.org website is unwarranted and unhelpful. The website has been in existence for over ten years without a whisper of a libel complaint or action from Rawat himself.  The revelatory information about Divine Light Mission/Elan Vital and its leader, Prem Rawat on that website has been made by people who have freely identified themselves at great expense to their personal and professional reputations, because of the severe backlash from members of this NRM/cult in Prem Rawat's defense.  Therefore, please tone your rhetoric down.  I understand the abundance of caution concerning BLPs, but please don't forget that something isn't libel or defamatory if it is true. Plus, the EPO website has been referenced by academics as well as reputable news organizations.  Furthermore, for the record, I don't want to see the words "hate group" one more time ever on Wikipedia pages when adherents are referencing the EPO website and especially myself and other ex-premies.  That's definitely defamatory libel against private persons who are also editors on Wikipedia.   I can't state this more seriously or sternly.  There's a big difference between what can be said about a public person (Prem Rawat) versus a private person (Wikipedia editors).  Please learn those distinctions and heed them.  Sylviecyn (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any such distinction (public v. private) on Wikipedia, all living persons are granted the right to be treated fairly. There are many reasons why legal action may not be taken against libelers. The fact that none aparently has been taken by Prem Rawat is not an indication that the libelous statements might be true. Can you imagine someone defending themself by saying, "It's the truth! He really is a f*ckhead!"? Information is one thing. Violent vituperation is quite another. Rumiton (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * None of which has anything to do with the topic. We're talking about former consumers of an inherently flawed product called "The Knowledge of Guru Maharaj Ji." This consists of four so-called meditation techniques taught in various ways by various teachers or "mahatmas" at various times. The primary issue is not the guru's past outrageous exploitation of his followers, which came through an organization he inherited from his family. We're talking about a flawed product. Some of these techniques would have some value to a very few people suffering from extreme mental illness, and in some cases, there has been benefit to certain drug addicts, but, among drug addicts I have met who have tried the guru's meditation, most have continued to be addicts, and I am aware of one individual who had to be restrained by mental health personnel as a direct result of the guru's teachings. Of course, I can't put personal knowledge in a Wikipedia article. It has to come from "reliable sources." The rules of Wikipedia have been manipulated and rewritten by Jossi in devious ways to prevent legitimate criticism of his guru. If someone visits EPO, (s)he will be exposed to valuable information which should be considered before attempting GMJ's "meditation" and Wikipedia owes that much to its readers. Rumiton and Momemento have been active, with jossi, in preventing an objective evaluation of their guru's "teachings." Wowest (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If Momento thinks I am harassing him then he needs to provide some evidence of it rather then making empty claims. I have been on a break from Wikipedia for weeks. I resent being accused of things of which there is absolutely no evidence. All I've done here is point out that Momento is a repeat offender. That is not harassment, it's just background information.    Will Beback    talk    14:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be very active in the articles about Prem Rawat, and trying very hard to make these articles as titillating and provocative as possible. If I am right, then it's maybe you the repeat offender? Just background information... PongoStick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pongostick (talk • contribs) 04:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before making accusations. One of our core policies is WP:AGF: assume good faith. I have never been blocked for violating even a single policy on Wikipedia, despite having made tens of thousands of edits over more than four years. Please do not make carefless accusations against editoprs in good standing, as it reflects poorly on you.   Will Beback    talk    04:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pongostick, earlier on this thread I asked someone who cast aspersions on Jossi to either substantiate the allegation or else withdraw it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Durova Charge! 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Davidwr

 * Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking

Arbcom ruled that dates may not be mass linked or delinked during the case. edited this template Oldprodfull to mass-delink dates in all uses of it with the express purpose of mass-delinking dates per Template_talk:Oldprodfull.  MBisanz  talk 02:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I acted in good faith. I wish I could say I was unaware of the injunction but it does look vaguely familiar. It just didn't register when I made the edit.  Looking at the wording of the injunction, I'm not sure it's even applicable.  From what little I know of the case, it concerns using tools that make many edits, not making a single edit to a widely-used template.  Because I am not convinced the injunction applies, I won't revert myself.  I will however not make similar edits until this matter is clarified.  I have no objection to any editor doing arbcom enforcement reverting this edit, but I would ask that if they do, they put a note on the template talk page referring back to the case, so 1) future well-meaning editors don't make the same edit and 2) when the case is over, it will be obvious that such an edit can or cannot be made.
 * MBisanz, thank you for bringing this to my attention. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional comments: If this temporary injunction does apply to templates, and it is in place for very long, it could cause more problems than it solves.  If the injunction will be in place for more than a week or two, I recommend that ARBCOM make it clear that making a single edit to a template does not constitute a "program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles."  If the injunction does apply to templates, be prepared for more incidents such as this one.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I imagine the purpose of the injunction is to prevent masses of edits that would be difficult to undo. In this case we are talking about 1 edit which could have been much more easily reverted than bringing it here. I'm struggling to see any express purpose of mass-delinking dates here either. Kevin (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair to MBisanz, the injunction could be read to enjoin editing templates, particularly if the editor's purpose is to "fix" many articles in one fell swoop. It's just not the reading I have. My reading is that this applies to mass runs of edits that are a pain to undo if the wrong thing gets changed, not single, quick-to-undo edits which happen to affect large numbers of articles. Clarification from ARBCOM or the community may be needed.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okey, we can disagree on the exact purpose, hopefully the case wraps up soon enough to make these sort of things moot.  MBisanz  talk 04:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: make moot: On that we have WP:CONSENSUS! davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kevin, that while the effect was "mass," the intention of the injunction does not cover this case. I further believe that asking for clarification on this is not required. -  brenneman  01:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Before this is closed, I have a few questions:
 * I promised I would not make similar edits until the matter is clarified. Is it safe to assume the matter is clarified in my favor, that is, that the edit and similar manual edits to templates that happen to have mass effects are not violations of this injuction?
 * If not, what guidance should be given to template editors in general, and how should that guidance be communicated so they don't wind up in the same position I am in now?
 * davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would not consider the number of participantes here sufficent to claim any consensus.
 * I would consider continued similar editing to be a very bad idea: It's clear that ArbCom (and everyone else) wants the parties involved to find other things to do.
 * If someone felt they simply must make these type of edits, link in the edit summary both the injuction and this discussion.
 * I would consider no additional guidance to template editors be required: The system worked, you're not in any "situation" but that you've been gently guided to find something else to do.
 * brenneman 01:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Luka Jačov
was blocked and WP:ARBMAC-warned for longterm slow sterile revert-warring at Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia in November. Today, after an absence of several weeks, he returned and resumed the exact same sterile reverts again. It's a to and fro between two completely different versions of the article; I readily agree the opposing version of the article is about as problematic as his, so I would have hoped to enter in some halfway fruitful discussion, but he doesn't seem to be willing or capable of that; all we get from him is perennial reverting to the exact same text. I ask for sanctions under ARBMAC; too involved myself to enact them in this case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think a restriction against reverting the article (except for vandalism) would be most appropriate? Since it usually takes two to tango, is there another party that might need that as well?  Shell    babelfish 03:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Back in November, the reverting was between him and a consensus of three (myself, User:ΚΕΚΡὩΨ, and User:NikoSilver. I'm not sure a classic revert parole will help all that much - he's the kind of guy who will just slow down the revert-warring to whatever the parole nominally says, but keep revert-warring all the same. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A block was unsuccessful last time, so this time I think something else is more appropriate.
 * is restricted to WP:0RR on Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia (except for obvious vandalism). This restriction is to remain in place until lifted by myself or another uninvolved admin. Should the problematic behaviour spread to other articles, then the restriction will be similarly spread.
 * Notified here, logged here. Kevin (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Wehwalt
I'm astonished at what's been going on for months on Adam Shapiro's biography. Wehwalt, an admin with years of experience, has been attributing blood-curdling calls for genocide to this guy, using personal homepages of fringe activists as sources. From the looks of this he first started his vendetta in 2006! It's unbelievable. Please, somebody, look into this. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 00:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the rules, try again. (Hint: link an arbcom case an make an actual clear complaint instead of a broadside attack)--Tznkai (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you want, diffs? Well, here's the earliest problematic edit, adding his own personal belief that Shapiro likes killing babies. That's September 2006. Here is the first time he starts fighting efforts to enforce BLP, where he restores blisteringly negative material sourced to somebody's personal Comcast homepage. That's May 2007. And then here he undoes a BLP enforcement action by User:Sceptre, in May 2008. Here again he restores a long string of material, some of which is merely dubious and some of which is blatantly libelous. As you can see he's been consistently restoring the libelous language and characterizing its removal as "vandalism."
 * And the arbcom case isn't actually necessary, come to think of it, since this goes right to core Wikipedia content policies, but it would of course be ARBPIA. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Mentioning which arbcom case you are referring to is actually necessary for admins to be able to enforce ArbCom decisions. Admins cannot guess that and that's why Tznkai asked you to read the rules: This page is for users to list breaches of an Arbitration Committee ruling. It is not part of dispute resolution.-- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  02:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do we even have policies to begin with? All you guys seem to care about is bureaucratic nuance, formatting, and punctillios. Meanwhile, an admin rewrites a biography of a living person to make him out as a genocidal maniac, and nobody seems to give a damn. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 03:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to take your word for it Eleland - I'm not going to take anyone's word for it, and let me be blunt: abusing admins who respond to your complaints, combined with a sensationalist, overwritten and beligerant complaint makes me think the person causing the problem is the complainant - in this case you. I gave you a chance - albeit a strongly worded one - to do it right, and you decided to heap abuse on us for "not giving a damn."--Tznkai (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, this thread on ANI might shed some light. Shell   babelfish 02:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to start handing out blocks for abusing WP:AE--Tznkai (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My god, what is wrong with you? Are you capable of reading English at an adult level? Wehwalt has been re-writing Adam Shapiro to portray him as a genocidal maniac, based on a Comcast personal webpage which claims to reprint a Lebanese newspaper which no longer exists. That isn't a question of taking words or of language, it's a question of fact. Has he or hasn't he? Do my diffs document BLP violations or don't they? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 05:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

When someone posts a concern here on AE that properly belongs on another noticeboard, then unless the resolution of the concern is obvious in any event, the best response is probably to point the person to the right place rather than argue about why the person is abusing AE. Here, a response that the concern belongs better on the BLP noticeboard or ANI would probably suffice. (Not commenting on the merits of the underlying complaint.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in general boss, but in this case this appears to have been a case of forum shopping.--Tznkai (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that both the ANI thread noted above and the WQA were both started by other users. There are now diffs documenting quite serious BLP breaches by an admin (Wehwalt) and a link to a relevant arbcom decision. Note that the problem is not simply that there are BLP breaches (these are being more or less dealt with) but that these breaches were made by an admin, hence a possible need for 'higher level' resolution. Given that involved's on both ANI & WQA have agreed Wehwalt's edits are seriously problematic & discussion is ongoing, are you saying it is innapropriate here at the moment? And if not were should it be taken if discussion at ANI does not resolve the issues, ie is this remaining 'open' pending non-resolution there?  Misarxist  09:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your point about who started the threads is granted freely. As to the problem being such and such was done by an administrator - that is a serious problem, but not one in my opinion that can be handled by AE. Aside from the genuine philosophical disagreements as to how big a deal the admin bit is, discretionary Arbitration remedies don't care whether or not someone is an admin: just whether or not they're causing a problem. Review of administrator conduct and any sanctions related to their bit (read: have their admin bit removed) falls within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration committee, not AE.
 * Part of the problem here is likely me: I dislike arbitration enforcement being used to further conflicts between users and tend to require complainants to do more leg work. In addition, going back two years to build a case at AE also tends to make me suspicious. I am reluctant to sanction someone for edits they did many years ago - recent actions are easier to judge. I will however, do my best now to address the complaint:


 * The most recent questionable edit is this, where Wehwalt's summary was rv:vandalism. Its worth noting that the complaint said Wehwalt has "been consistently restoring the libelous language and characterizing its removal as "vandalism." " which hardly squares with a view of the last 500 edits to that article where the word vandalism shows up 3 times - only once used by Wehwalt. This is a reversion of an IP editor who had been editing without useful summaries or discussion, which generally is given greater tolerance (should it? I'm not sure, depends how bad sockpuppeting has gotten).
 * This edit was in fact a legitimate reversion and reveals what the fight over the "personal comcast" page is: the site hosts a copy of an article. Does that make it appropriate? Maybe, maybe not - but its relevant information that the complainant neglected to add.
 * Wehwalt made a significant run of edits as seen here which adds significant amounts of negative material. Compared to the most recent version like so shows it has been removed and then comparing to Wehwalt's most recent string of edits (several months ago) Wehwalt's most recent version like so (this week) shows that Wehwalt tried to maintain the substance of his material. The talk page suggests however, that that content evolved out of civil and productive discussion with User:Carolmooredc.
 * The primary problem with Wehwalt's content seems to be one of balance - too much negative material, but I am not a sufficient expert in the subject matter nor the nuances of BLP. Most of the editorial comments complained about in early edits have been stripped out since.
 * A brief review of the edit summaries shows that Eleland was totally over the top and disruptive, flinging wild accusations - its no wonder that his concerns weren't taken seriously - despite that, talk page suggests that Wehwalt tried to discuss civilly with him anyway.
 * At the end of the day, someone being wrong is not sufficient reason to sanction them under AE provisions, because I have not been given, nor have I found evidence to suggest Wehwalt is using any undue influence to affect control over the article. While there may have in fact been problems of BLP violations (I leave this to experts on BLP to determine) nothing suggests to me that Wehwalt cannot be reasoned with and the article improved under normal means. In fact, evidence suggests that the most objectionable material is very old (in wiki time) and has been since dealt with - which suggests that the wiki-way has worked here.
 * I have to take action at this time, but do not object to another admin taking action.--Tznkai (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As Risker has noted on WP:AN/I, "When a situation can be corrected using Wikipedia policies, it should be. Arbcom general and discretionary sanctions are extensions of our basic policies that lower the threshold at which an administrative action can be taken. The ARBPIA sanctions are not required in this case, because the editors involved have breeched ordinary, everyday Wikipedia standards." I suggest that any followup discussion of this issue should take place in the ongoing thread at WP:AN/I. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius/Date delinker
As noted here By Hex: "Ohconfucius has continued to make mass edits delinking dates using his alternate account, Date delinker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) (see contribution history; a random example is provided in the evidence section of this arbitration), in direct contravention of the temporary injunction issued against such activities by the arbitrators."

Regards, AKAF (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My thanks to AKAF for this and MBisanz for leaving a note on my talk page - I wasn't aware of this page before. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   14:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Notification of injunction dated 2009-01-13T11:56:50, delivered by one of the clerks for the case to Ohconfucius' talk page. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have blocked indefinitely pending review and conclusion of the Arbitration case, and it has been noted at User talk:Date delinker.  seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  14:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Parishan
I am very annoyed at the behavior of user. The point is this, I have been for a long time involved in the extremely heated discussions about the ancient population of Artsakh. User Parishan, who had not participated in the ongoing discussion, suddenly adds in the article a very dubious merit which was still discussed in the talkpage and certainly there was more time needed to reach a consensus. The way that Parishan "quoted" the historian Robert Hewsen, the place where he did that, the fact that he left no edit summary, and his post in the talkpage show that he whether simply neglected the ongoing discussion or did not even read it.

A similar behaviour he showed some time ago when he wrote in the same article that Sisak was not a real person, while I had 3 times highlighted in the talkpage that this person is note even mentioned in the article.

Recently Parishan endless moved the title of Aghstev River to Aghstafa River without even adding a letter to the talk page, the result being a long move-war and that the title of that article is till now disputed. And something that is really concerning me: all the time that there was a discussion going in Talk:Aghstafa River, and I showed that there was no justification for his renaming, givien that Aghstev appears to be more common in English language sources, Parishan not even a single time reacted there.

I have perceived that user Parishan has been edit-warring at articles as Lingua franca, Church of Caucasian Albania and Amaras Monastery. According to WP rules we should work together and use talkpages to settle differences, something I tried to do in talk:Artsakh. So I experience this kind of edits disruptive and I expect the admins will take measures to ensure that this user will stop his unfair treatment. --Vacio (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First, Parishan was involved in the discussions in Artsakh article from the very beginning, just check the talk of the article and you'll see that he is a long time contributor to that article. And he explained in much detail why he restored the quotes that Vacio deleted from the article. Vacio removed the following quote from the article about Artsakh many times:


 * Note how it disappears every time after Vacio's edits:   while no consensus on its deletion has ever been reached at the talk of the article. So why does Vacio think that it is Ok for him to delete sourced info from the article without any consensus with other involved parties, and not Ok for others to restore it? It should also be noted that Vacio has been twice placed on editing restrictions, but both times the sanctions were lifted, first time because the admin was given incorrect information that Vacio had no prior warning,    and second time after Vacio promised not to edit war.   Yet Vacio continues edit warring on Artsakh and other pages. -- Grand  master  09:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As for Aghstafa River, one can check the talk of the article and see that there's a consensus on renaming the article to Akstafa River, and the only one stonewalling and blocking the consensus is Vacio. There are another 4 users involved in discussion on talk of that article, and while no one else agreed to the name proposed by Vacio, he attached a tag claiming that the name is disputed, despite the fact that most of the editors reached a consensus on the appropriate title for the article: -- Grand  master  10:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the way I acted in Aghstafa River is in accordence with WP rules: I used the talkpage to settle a difference rather than move-warring, you can not resent me for agreeing or disagreeing with one or another version, after all admin Parsecboy said, it seems that "...Agstev is the preferred spelling in English" and that "Aghstafa is the least preferred]". So why do you rebuke me for placing the "Title Disputed" tag in the article, when the current title is the least preferred and by the way the result of move-warring rather than discussion?
 * Then, I think accusing me for edit-warring in the Artsakh article is not fair here. I belive we should first reach a consensus before adding an information which is disputed in the talkpage. I believe this way to settle differences is what we learned from Khoikhoi, Francis Tyers and other madiators (cf. ), and this is the way we recently (although partially) reached a consensus for the intro of Nagorno-Karabakh. I hope admins will carefully read the ongoing discussion (Talk:Artsakh) and see that I indeed have the purpose to reach a consensus rather that deleting or readding an infornation by means of edit-warring. I have each time the bad experience that after the dubious infrnation is added in the article there is no interest anymore for consensus, in particular some time ago user Grandmaster added the same dubious passage in the Nagorno-Karabakh article, unlike my complaints that there was no consensus for that and that his treatment was unfaur, however he was not anymore interested in a discussion for consensus and did not even respond to my posts in the talkpage there. I also ask the attention of admins to the behavior of Grandmaster in the current discussion: almost each time he neglects to react on my arguments which I think are sufficient to leave off the quote of Hewsen in question (I even get the impression that he is not noticing them), repeating each time that the "does not justify a removal of the quote". and now he is again adding the dubious quote in the article . The quote that he added in the article differs even from the original text of Hewsen, something I noticed in the talkpage yesterday, but apparently once again neglected. Is this the way we should work together? And how we should reach a consensus when we don't listen each other? --Vacio (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You should first reach a consensus, and then remove information from the article. And how can you explain removal of another quote, from the Russian scholar Shinerelman, from the same article? You removed it many times without any explanation at all. It was one of the quotes restored by Parishan. I explained many times that all existing scholarly opinions should be fairly represented in the article. If you indeed want to reach a consensus, you should not remove anything unless there's a consensus to do so, and you should seek mediation, if no consensus has been reached. The way you act is nothing but edit warring, which was a reason you were placed on parole twice before. -- Grand master  12:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not true Grandmaster: first time I rewrote the article based on "Armenia: A Historical Atlas", the last work of the western scholar Robert Hewsen, I indeed left many passages out which did not fit with this work (including some passages written by myself earlier), second time you reverted some of my edits, I asked you for explanation, which you had not, therefore I resored them , finally third time I indeed reverted the last edits of Parishan for which I came here , if the latter was a violation of WP rules (frankly I had loosed my hair), I honestly appologize. As for Shnirelman, as far I can remember, I have but once left him out by my last rewrite of the article, but I believe we don't have differences at that point, so it couldn't have been edit warring. --Vacio (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Vacio, familiarising myself with the discussion at Talk:Artsakh was the very reason why I decided to restore information you deleted without any reasonable explanation; particularly the deletion of a clarifying quote from Shnirelman (without deleting the actual reference) which you never accounted for on talkpage.

With regard to the other articles, I did make use of the talkpage on Amaras Monastery, and I had provided straightforward rationale in my edit summaries earlier, unlike MarshallBagramyan who made very unacademic statements while reverting my edits and insulted me on talkpage. As for Lingua franca, the heated discussion on talkpage and a whole lot of uncommented and unrebutted excerpts from third-party sources dating back to November indicate quite clearly that my reverts were more than justified. Parishan (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Without reasonable explanation!? Did you read for example that: "...the author himself makes some changes in his recent work about the populaion of Artsakh, e.g. he says it is doubtful that Artsakh has been under Median rule before 2nd c. BC". The problem here is not whether you are right or not, Parishan, the problem is how you try to settle differences. Labeling the argumanations of an other user as "not reasonable", is not sufficient to "decide" it. You know how long the discussions has been going about the ancient population of Artsakh? Do you know how controversial the topic among the scholars themselves is? You have but rarely edited the Artsakh article (three, as far as I remember, including the aforementioned two ones) and its talkpage. I hope you admit that your recent behaviour was not proper. If yes, I am even willing to close the discussion here, after all I don't think restrictions are always the best manner to incite us to assume good faith. And as a matter of fact, if you indeed decide to work together to reach a consensus, I would only be happy for. --Vacio (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Vacio's words do indeed carry weight. For that matter, GM's arguments are groundless, as he himself is guilty of removing sources and shamefully changing the wording (one of countless examples) of the text when they don't correspond to the sources. Their manipulation also carries double standards, as they use sources such as Viktor Shnirelman's Memory Wars to discredit Armenian history when the same author reserves a good chunk of his book to criticize Azeri "historians" for committing the same blatant acts of falsification that we see on Wikipedia. Was it not Parishan who removed from an article the notion that Turkic tribes invaded the region in the 12th century? Someone has to come and put the brakes on this silly game of removing mention of Armenians prior to the 19th century and the equally ridiculous notion that Turkic tribes never invaded the region.

Parishan defense for his edits on the Lingua Franca page is abysmal and unconvincing, since he misused the sources to sustain a fringe theory only supported by the pseudo-scholars in Baku. The time is ripe for someone to do something about his disruptions. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If a source criticizes Azerbaijani historians, why cannot it be used as a source of criticism of the Armenian scholars? I see no logic here. Both sides were involved in manipulation of historical facts, and Shnirelman is not the only source on that. And of course any accusations of me changing sources are baseless, and are off-topic here. The problem is that suppression of info from a reliable source is not acceptable, if there are different views on the subject in the scholarly community, we should present all notable ones. I don't see Parishan making any reverts in the article about Artsakh in excess of 1rv per week, even though he is not under any revert restriction, so what's the point in placing him on parole? If anything, Vacio was the one who reverted the article more than once a week, so if anyone is to be placed on parole, it should be Vacio. Grand  master  06:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikifan12345 and User:Brewcrewer
has been engaging in some very unpleasant personal attacks against other editors on Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, accusing them - without any justification as far as I can see - of being anti-Semites and of engaging in anti-Semitism. Multiple editors have asked him to withdraw or remove his accusations, but he has responded with scorn. He has been warned to desist by RomaC, Elonka and myself, but has twice deleted these warnings from his talk page and has continued to make personal attacks.

Given this apparently wilful behaviour, the standing prohibition on personal attacks and the arbitration sanctions on this article, I believe arbitration action is necessary in this case. Wikifan12345 seems to have been engaged in little more than unproductive bickering and insulting the editors on Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, so I suggest that a ban on participation in that article would be appropriate, along with a block for the personal attacks.

I am also concerned at this intervention by 's on Wikifan12345's talk page, which seem to be both a series of personal attacks against other editors and a call to treat Wikipedia as a battlefield. It's a clear violation of the arbitration sanctions; I suggest a warning for now.

For the record, I'm not involved with this article, but as I've edited elsewhere in the topic area it would be best if another admin could take the necessary steps here. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, you are extremely involved in I-P area, and virtually without fail look to sanction pro-Israeli editors and to weaken sanctions against pro-Palestinian editors. It strikes me that you are not the best one to be taking this to ANI. Also, the area is a battlefield as far a both sides are concerned.  It is simply much easier to remain civil when the overwhelming population of editors on a page are editing from your POV. To pretend that somehow the pro-Israel (dare I say, the Jewish State) POV is the side turning this into a WP:Battle is fantasy.  The pro-Palestinian side is the side stonewalling and essentially demanding ownership of the article against all comers.  The pro-Israeli side is simply not taking every violation to some board, looking for sanctions.  Instead we have run the talk page to ~ something over 30 pages in as many days, trying to work toward WP:CONSENSUS.  This area is very hot right now and I think a little blowing off is hardly the end of the world. It might be better if an admin really tried to do some serious mediation and help guide things along amicably, instead of trying to knock off pro-Israeli editors. With respect  Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not AN/I, and it's precisely because I've occasionally edited other I-P related articles that I've brought it here for action rather than slapping Wikifan12345 with a ban or block myself. It's disappointing but not really surprising that you should be trying to excuse his behaviour. Calling other editors "anti-Semites" is not "a little blowing off", it's an unacceptable personal attack and it's expressly prohibited by policy. Arbitration sanctions were applied to this topic area specifically "to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles". It's not a matter of going a little bit over the line; it's a blatant violation which came after RomaC's earlier warning about personal attacks. There is no inequality of treatment here. If you think someone on the pro-Palestinian side has breached arbitration sanctions, you have just as much right as anyone else to raise it here in arbitration enforcement. Finally, I'd advise you to tone down your own overt hostility and assumptions of bad faith - this page is not a good place for it, particularly as you're already serving a month's ban from editing that article. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've got this page watchlisted, seeing as how the obviously inapplicable request to consider triggering restrictions against me has not been withdrawn. ChrisO, I didn't look at anything Wikifan12345 has said or done here, but I did glance at Brewcrewer's comment.  Brewcrewer wrote to Wikifan12345: "I encourage you to try to edit the article and try to interact civilly on the talkpage, but when things get too crazy just move on to another article that is of interest to you."  There's no way in tarnation that that is a "call to treat Wikipedia as a battlefield."  Quite the opposite.  No warning is called-for there, whatsoever.  Nada.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That advice isn't too bad, but it's the preceding lines that concern me: "The swarm of nasty pov-pushers butchering the article in the name of a consensus are really out of control. I generally avoid the article because I don't want to find myself in a situation where I would lose my control and tell these pov-pushers where to go ... Hopefully, one day the pov pushers will go back to their porn habit ..." That kind of comment is not helpful, particularly where tensions already exist. I don't think it merits a block but Brewcrewer needs to be reminded that he should not be personalising disputes. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I too wish that all POV-pushers at Wikipedia would go back to their porn habit. But that's not a personal attack is it?  I haven't named anyone, after all.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's not get hung up on the naming issue. Look at the big picture: it's obviously a highly contested article, tensions are running high and it's very unhelpful for editors to denigrate each other in this way. Derogatory comments about editors, individually or collectively, are ipso facto a type of personal attack; that kind of hostility needs to be discouraged. As I said, a block is not necessary at this stage, but the point certainly needs to be made clear. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd think a friendly reminder to Brewcrewer would suffice. Anyway, I just hope that whoever runs this AE page will dispose of my matter before yours!  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I do think stepped over the line with Hitler analogies and calling other editors antisemitic when they did not agree with him. Bandying accusations of antisemitism is highly offensive, he was asked to strike the comments by several editors but refused, he was cautioned on his talk page by several other editors and simply blanked the cautions. That's not productive behavior in my opinion. On the other point, I don't regard Brewcrewer's comments as problematic. RomaC (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was unable to defend myself because User:ChrisO blocked me after requesting my involvement. Kind of odd.  Anyways - RomaC, my Hitler analogy was not directed at any user - it was in reference to Richard Falk.  And not so much comparing Falk to Hitler, which I emphasized quite simply, but how we were giving Falk too much credence and not balancing the section.   For further info regarding such discussion, Falk section
 * The accusations of Antisemitism was the result of my interpretation of users User:Nableezy, User:Untwirl, and many others refusal to agree to information that did not reflect their own personal opinion. I tried to rationalize what was going on, why they wouldn't agree. Their excuses were rather short-sighted, or again POV-pushing like User:Nableezy insisting the war was a genocide.  I didn't go around slamming people who didn't agree with my ideas as anti-Semitic, only disagreements that had no justification. If you take a look at my original propositions, you will find that my manner was more than appropriate.  If you want to disagree with me that's fine, but if there is no logical or rationale evidence that supports your disagreement, and you refuse to concede or come to a compromise, I will most certainly examine the situation and call it according to what is is (or in my case - antisemitic).  In retrospect, this was a bad call.  Which is why I headed to the warning that I take a break from the article which I voluntarily did.  But please keep in mind, I've been called or references as an extreme-Zionist many times in these types of articles (Israel and the apartheid analogy), which I am most certainly not. Never had there been such a fuss, as I didn't think it was part of the problem.  There was so much POV-pushing and nothing was getting done that it's just part of the game for people to get mad.  I'm not defending my unfriendly response, but I really hope you can in the least empathize with the circumstances.  The talk was nothing short of a huge bandwagon, and many users agree with me.  Again, I apologize for my approach, and will voluntarily take a break from 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict if desired.  And I must say, I never even edited the article. Not a single edit if I recall.  I prefer coming to a consensus in talk as revert wars seem to be a major issue in those kinds of articles.  Be that as it may, I don't think I will ever edit the article unless it's grammar or vandalism. Too much trouble and it will likely be reverted regardless. Ok - my point is: it seems this arbitration is labeling me as a total troll, which I am not.  Also, User:RomaC, correct me if I'm wrong - but I'm pretty sure you were on the opposite fence of the discussion in the article. Does that pose a conflict of interest? Or I may be confusing you with User:RolandR.  Hmm, anyways.


 * Also also also, please refer to my talk page for further info on the matter. I was discouraged by User:ChrisO involvement, seeing as he and I have a lengthy history on similar articles Israel and the apartheid analogy where he was accused of over-stepping his bounds as an admin to push opinions outside of the consensus.  I'd also like to request a delay for further "sentencing" so I can formulate a response.  It seems there is heavy discussion on my user talk page User:Elonka's, and several other areas of this site.  I hope we can condense it all to make this easier.  And, I hope we can have administrators who were not involved in past disputes to arbitrate as well.  Thanks! edit: Sorry for grammar, will clean later.Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I never once called this war a genocide, in fact I said quite clearly that it was not. There is not a single anti-semitic comment that I made in the entirety of the 30 odd archive talk pages in that article. Not a single one. Every other editor involved in the discussion told you that you were out of line to make that accusation, yet you stood by it and continue to do so. Nableezy (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see your response User:Nableezy. According to the discussion, you did refer to the recent war as a genocide.  Maybe it was in jest, but you did: You are right, I salute Israel for not completing a genocide. What tremendous moral fiber they must possess. I can't seem to find it, perhaps you deleted it or perhaps I'm just not a good researcher: but if you search, genocide it will be on the first page: Genocide

Another quote proving the woeful ignorance of another user:

falk and the un are reliable, notable, and npov - User:untwril


 * A little off-topic, but here is another quote from User:Nableezy that demonstrates his extreme POV: It is the character of the occupation that gives rise to sharp criticism of Israel's approach, especially its harsh blockade of Gaza, resulting in the collective punishment of the 1.5 million inhabitants. By attacking the observer rather than what is observed, Israel plays a clever mind game.international Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is untrue to claim you were "unable to defend myself because User:ChrisO blocked me after requesting my involvement." I warned you at 12:45, 3 February 2009. That was the first contact I'd had with you. You were not blocked at that time or any point thereafter. (Added: It looks like you were caught in an autoblock - I'm guessing this was accidental collateral damage from another blocked user on the same network. That does happen occasionally.) Elonka gave you a separate warning at 18:10, 3 February 2009. You blanked both warnings at 22:06, 3 February 2009, without responding to either. There has been nothing to stop you from replying to any of the three warnings by myself, Elonka and RomaC, or retracting your personal attacks, but you have not done so - even now. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Am I not allowed to blank warnings? Your warnings were simple cease-and-desist and did not request for a response.  Unless you're definition of response is listening, then yes, I followed Elonka's warning and ended my involvement in the talk discussion.  What, I say I'm sorry or you're going to ban me from editing?  Seriously Chris?  If this is your main concern, then I'm sorry.  I truly am sorry.  Now, please review my lengthy post above and if you have any further complaints, don't hesitate to add them here.  Thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not me or Elonka to whom you need to apologise - we're not the ones you attacked. I'd suggest that you do as the other editors on that talk page requested and remove your accusations of anti-semitism. I think doing that would show good faith on your part. I do appreciate that you may be getting frustrated, but you might like to take a look at Staying cool when the editing gets hot for some practical advice on how to deal with that. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You want me to tamper with the evidence? Yeah, I don't think that is a smart move.  And as I said, I've explained my rationale for my statements.  I didn't go around trolling the talk like you are insinuating.  I apologize if I actually offended anyone, though I doubt I did.  They're still continuing their extreme-POV pushing and my fuss did nothing to stop it.  In fact, I may very well get banned - even a greater win.  : )


 * So Chris, I'm sorry. But I'm not going to write out a confession and cry my eyes out for saying something I sincerely meant. But, I am sorry if I actually offended anyone and if my behavior was considered inappropriate beyond typical Israel/Palestinian arguments. The core of my argument is trying to distant myself from what I said, but also emphasize the double-standard being applied.  The users who have reported me have step the bounds of NPOV many times, and the article itself screams bias.  I like to consider myself a logical thinker sometimes, so when I see someone acting antisemitic, I tend to say it if they continue to impose their extreme agenda and refuse to even enter a consensus and their responses give me that impression.  My comments have antisemitism were not an accusations wirled at those who disagred with me.  I went along with the bandwagon for several pages until I realized it was going nowhere.  If the users I accused are not antisemitic, then what explains their unchanging refusal to appreciate suggestions outside their own?  If there was a logical explanation for their disagreement, instead of fallacy-loaded rhetoric, I would have totally agreed.  It's not like I have a history of slamming those who disagree with me as antisemitic.  In fact, it's just the opposite, many users who share similar opinions have been berated with Zionist insults accusations, even in the presence of admins like User:ChrisO.  You might have to sift through the Israel and the apartheid analogy discussion, but it's there.  I mean seriously, how can I be completely and totally wrong and their opinion is 100% factual and neutral.  I don't see the logic in that. Again, I apologize for my statements and will voluntarily remove myself from the article, but the illusion that banning me from the article and banning me from editing indefinitely will magically erase the blatant POV-pushing which clearly is the source of the problem is rather silly.  All I wanted to do was improve the article, or at least minimize the overt-bias, but no one wanted to.  And if you take a look at the user pages whom I have accused, and the user pages in the talk, you will notice a pattern in opinion. ; ) Also, it's kinda hard to respond when people add in posts inbetween discussions.  Can we just continue the talk up-to-down...? Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As usual, issues in this area seem to be a bit convoluted, but here's my take: Wikifan12345 made a comment labeling other editors as anti-semitic over a disagreement; he also called their viewpoints insanity and made other unnecessarily personal remarks. Looking at his history (not many diffs were given here) it looks like he occasionally gets too involved and has an outburst like this. That seems to be pretty typical behavior in this editing area, not that everyone shouldn't work to be better, but meh.

So, how about Wikifan agrees to work on walking away from the computer instead of ranting, with the understanding that continued outbursts will result in a mandatory break from the topic area? And as a side note, Brewcrewer, its one thing to share frustration over editing, but if possible, try to make sure that you're not going to be stirring up an already tense situation. Like it or not, working on P/I articles means something different than working on most of the rest of the project. Shell   babelfish 08:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But I hope this applies to everyone, especially those that actually edit articles. Expecting users to honor the system 100% of the time regardless of circumstances is kind of ignorant.  I'm sorry if people were offended, but I believed at the time my calls were sincere and justified.  I was more than accommodating, but it was like arguing with a stonewall.  Either you get with the program or your "unproductive."  This type of mob-rule is quite common in Israel/Palestinian articles, and to cherry-pick users like myself while ignoring the much larger source of the issue doesn't make sense in my opinion.  Other users have reiterated my "controversial" beliefs, so this is nothing unique.  I'm not perfect, and the POV-pushing users who continue to use their extreme bias to influence articles without warning/administrative action are far from perfect as well. And I need to emphasize, whatever bias I carry I never used it to influence the actual article.  I firmly believe a reasonable consensus/comprise is necessary to promote a more productive and active environment, but when users who share identical beliefs and group up to further push their collective agenda, it's extremely difficult to not get mad. And, as I've stated before, ChrisO's involvement is highly suspicious, and I hope that is addressed soon.    ; )  Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So one editor gets canned for 2 weeks for telling someone to "fuck off", while another who hurls antisemitic rhetoric gets the wrist-slap, and maybe a firmer wist-slap if it happens again? Something is wrong with this picture. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was never involved in the recent dispute with [User:Eleland], but in the past he's been extremely unkind and has called me and others Zionist epithets several times. I never ever reported him and honestly don't think he should have been canned because these controversial articles simply beg for inappropriate responses. Wikipedia assumes everyone should be neutral, but most people are not, especially in political talk.  So when there is a huge bandwagon, whether it be pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian, telling someone to "****" off in my mind can be a rather reasonable response to the way people are treating you.  I mean, when I'm interpreting the loaded responses with bandwagoning, and not a single user is appreciating my suggestions, and it seems every user who isn't understanding clearly has a conflicting POV, and none of them will even consider ideas outside their own, I feel like they're telling me to "****" off, even though they aren't saying it.  I'm sure User:Elelenad deserved it and I am in no way defending his case, but I really hope that the admins can understand the kind of pressure we are in.  There is a huge lack of moderation, and when people complain, it's mostly to get rid of people like me who have a different opinion.  They piss you off, bate you, and when you react - "time for punishments!" Anyways lol.


 * If necessary, I'd be happy to point out the hypocrisy and prove my case of bandwagoning. The vast majority of the talk section users sit on the pro-Palestinian aisle, and as result, everyone who says nay is shutdown. Everyone.  Especially in regards to controversial sections. From what I see, the ones who are pushing for my ban are those who disagreed with me in the first place and those who have been involved in past disputes, like user user:ChrisO.  I like user User:Elonka and consider her opinion to be more than impartial, but she's also been in past disputes.  If you want to ban me temporarily go ahead, but Elonka is asking ChrisO is I should be perma-banned from wiki all together - so uhhh. Does he provide enough useful content, that we should only implement a focused ban? Or is a site-wide block more appropriate?


 * I'd like to emphasize that I never edited the article, and never imposed my obvious bias. Just so you all know.  And also, I've been involved in other Israel-related topics that haven't raised this kind of discussion, though the recent one has made an article-starter rather upset:  link title  That has cooled off from what I remember. Also, if you're just starting to read the discussion again, please look through the posts a second time as I had to edit in more responses because some users posted in between posts. This took forever, almost and hour.  Please make an effort to respond to most of the points I make instead of choosing one and ignoring the rest. I doubt this is on purpose, I do it too sometimes, but since my privileges as an editor are at risk, I hope you do your best. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There have been plenty of personal attacks on this page from users on both sides of the aisles. And while I am not into labeling people and calling them names, one has to remember that this article concerns a conflict/war in which one side in the conflict is the Jewish state.  And in fact, it is accepted definition of antisemitism  that there is antisemitism in relation to Israel.  .  It includes such things as
 * Applying 	double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or 	demanded of any other democratic nation
 * Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
 * Drawing 	comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
 * Holding 	Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
 * Certainly the idea of double standards have been brought up time and time again in the talk in this article, in relation to sourcing, what is included in the article and what is left out. A user can be excused for believing that some of the editors (and even some of the admins) may be antisemitic or motivated by this.  I agree that it is best not to name-call, but give me the rest of the day and I can find plenty of (egregioius) examples of name-calling from the other side. Mind you I have a life outside of wiki.  I say warn wikifan and let it pass. As for Brewcrewer, he was talking on a personal talk page only, did not name names, and frankly gave Wikifan good advice.  This should never have come up. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, this edit conflict is extremely annoying. I'm not very technical with wikipedia formatting and when discussions get so huge it's hard to go through every paragraph.  Here is my recent discussion, I just pasted everything from the start.  If someone would be so kind as to put the right info in the right spots feel free to, if not...just think of this as an updated copy.  It should go right above Tundra's recent post. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * edit, ok I fixed it. But it took forever.  I denoted all my updates with *, to make it easier to navigate.  Sorry! Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, maybe we can section off this discussion like "for", "against", and "comment." I don't know, just an idea. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The 'genocide' line was in response to you saying that Israel could have killed every single person in Gaza in 15 minutes if they wanted to. That would have been a genocide and I commended Israel on not doing so. The second part was not a quote from me, it was a direct quote from the person you were accusing of bias, Falk. Read beyond a single word and you may find that you are incorrect in your assertions. (and you doubled up on some of the comments here, might want to fix that) Nableezy (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless, you said it. You inferred that the war in Gaza was a genocide, and you comment on their "moral fiber" (sarcasm).  Look, I don't care.  I don't care that you have an extreme POV.  I really don't.  But if I'm going to get railed while the rest are free to go, I do care.  As tundrabuggy as explained quite thoroughly, there is something inherently wrong with this process.  I'd like to think this has nothing to do with my inappropriate language, as far greater acts have occurred within that talk page and no action was sought by any mod, admin, or user.  And again, I don't care.  I try not to complain, all I wanted was to improve the article - but it's impossible when people won't come to a consensus, and when you tell them the your opinion, you're the bad guy.  I seriously believe wikipedia should just toss these kinds of articles because nothing ever gets done and all they do is promote bias one way or another.  Bias that will never be solved.  It's beyond controversy, it's simply propaganda. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, this discussion could probably be closed now. I agree with Shell that if Wikifan12345 makes further accusations of antisemitism he should be banned from editing the article. Also, I agree that Brewcrewer was making a tense situation worse. Finally, I've left a note for Tundrabuggy, because of his unhelpful antisemitism remark. PhilKnight (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Why closed? I just spent a lot of time explaining my case and you have reduced it to something I thoroughly proved incorrect.  I urge you to read what I wrote, because you would know I never edited the article to begin with.  Thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, article and talk page. Otherwise, I don't see why this can't be closed now. PhilKnight (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it rather odd that I offer my explanations to ChrisO and the rest of the gang, and after I've done that, you say the article should be closed and I should be banned. Is this how the process works?  I hope this isn't a show trial lol.  Btw Phil, what is your take on the Israel article?  Where do you sit, partisan wise?  I only ask because I'd like to see an admin who is not emotionally invested in the subject to in the least offer their opinion.  And by that I mean actually reading what I've written and giving specific comments. Is that too much to ask?  If knew the punishments were pre-determined I wouldn't have even responded to the warnings tagged. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems my accusations aren't unique: link title Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No they are not unique, I have had an editor say that I am clearly a Hamas operative, that was because I said 'many consider Hamas a terrorist organization, but many also consider it a resistance organization and it is the current government of Gaza'. Bringing up other people who make wild accusation without cause does not make your case stronger. If you think I am an anti-semite actually point to something that I wrote that is anti-semitic. But the wild accusations of some anon editor dont prove your case. Nableezy (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)