Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Banned user violation[edit]

User:Arthur_Ellis is banned for one month under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden for sock-puppetry, block evasion, and edit warring. He has recently vandalized the arbitration page [1] [2], evading his block and violating a ruling in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren Kinsella that he restrict himself to editing with one account. Bucketsofg 01:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Thatcher131 01:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Yaksha[edit]

I am not certain if this is the correct place to post this, so if it needs to go elsewhere, please let me know. However, since there is an active case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions, this seemed the right place to start. One of the issues in the case is that one of the users has been engaging in hundreds of non-consensus page moves. The arbitration case has been accepted, but Yaksha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is continuing to engage in more non-consensus page moves, with no attempt at RM procedure for these articles, and in violation of consensus that's already been reached as to how those articles should be named (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Buffy/Episodes). I request administrator assistance in reverting these moves, so that the arbitration process can continue with a minimum of confusion. --Elonka 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with this page, which is for enforcement of final decisions. In any case, I would rather not see any more moves in either direction for the moment, and I have asked Yaksha to stop for the time being. But I'm not interested in reverting them either. Redirects exist, so there won't be any long term harm in waiting for the outcome of the case. Thatcher131 23:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis socks again[edit]

User:Arthur_Ellis is violating the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren Kinsella, under which he is forbidden from editing his own page, Mark Bourrie. He is violating both of these with 209.217.123.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Keeperdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). 209.226.201.243 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Could a checkuser confirm this please? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Arthur_Ellis is to old to check directly, but looking at the evidence in the RFAR, the technical evidence supports the conclusion that Keeperdog and 209.226.201.243 are Arthur_Ellis. Essjay (Talk) 06:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Both socks are now blocked indefinably, by me. [3], [4]. Main account (User:Arthur_Ellis) appears to already be blocked indefinably as well, by User:Yanksox. The block of the main account occurred back in 02:18, October 23, 2006. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 07:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I have unblocked 209.217.123.163 due to the fact that I misread the Check User response above. I have left a message for Essjay for clarification on which IP is at fault. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 18:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Keeperdog should only be blocked for one month. Arthur Ellis was blocked at his own request. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren Kinsella would allow a brief block for editing his own page, he was also blocked generally for one month under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel Marsden so the one month block should be reset for block evasion. There's no point in blocking the IP longer than 24 hours because it is dynamic and he can change them as often as he wants to. Thatcher131 18:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those probably got transposed. 209.217.123.163 is at fault. Thatcher is correct that it's a dynamic IP so blocking it is a somewhat futile exercise. Mackensen (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you can pretty much assume that any Bell Canada IP that jumps to Mark Bourrie or Warren Kinsella is part of the Bourrie brigade; likewise any Magma IP (such as 209.226.201.243 who posted this) is part of the Kinsella crew. Unfortunately these two middle-aged Canadian bloggers have decided to bring their rather childish personal dispute to Wikipedia. Thatcher131 18:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I did reset the block on User:Keeperdog to 1 month as proposed by Thatcher. Details can be found here. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to confirm: It was a transposition, both were 209 addresses, and when I scrolled up in edit view to copy the right one, I got the signature rather than the other one. Essjay (Talk) 01:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Intangible / User:Intangible2.0[edit]

Intangible (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort.

He is performing a slow edit war at Talk:New-Flemish Alliance, not accepting a differing point of view, refusing to engage in a discussion.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

[5], [6], [7], [8] [9], [10], [11]

83.182.207.220 23:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide us with what ArbCom case you are referring to. I or any other admin cannot take action until a case under which the sanction was given is provided. Thanks —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Intangible. However, evidence that User:Intangible2.0 is the same editor as User:Intangible is needed. Intangible (the first one) recently listed his userpage on MfD and indicated he was leaving the project. It's possible that Intangible2.0 is an imposter account intended to poison any possibility of Intangible's returning later. Newyorkbrad 00:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Before much more talk goes on here we are going to have to have a checkuser investigate. So, could a checkuser investigate into this matter? Thanks. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the outstanding question is: Is User:Intangible2.0, the same user as User:Intangible? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Intangible, Intangible2.0, Pinkos, and Pinko1.25 are all the same person. Dmcdevit·t 06:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I have indefinitely blocked all the sockpuppets but since I'm not very familiar with the case, I'll leave the blocking of the main account (Intangible) for the better informed admins. --Srikeit 08:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This is complicated. The content that Intangible2.0 edit warred over was the statement that some members of a political party are neo-nazis. This is highly inflammatory, and talk pages are also subject to WP:BLP (not to mention Godwin's law). I have removed the comments. Further, Intangible has abandoned his original account, so Intangible2.0 is a legitimate replacement account. But, by editing via the Pinkos accounts he showed intent to evade his arbitration restrictions by using a new account without telling Arbcom, so 24 hour block on Intangible2.0, after which he may resume editing under the same limits imposed on Intangible. Thatcher131 14:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems with User:Iantresman and Wolf Effect[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience says that Ian is on probation for science articles. Reliable sources are important for many of the articles we edit. Yet I'll note this edit to Wolf Effect had Ian including sources from a variety of unreliable sources, none of whom were basic researchers in the field. This included a science writer (not a scientist): Jeff Kanipe, a self-employed crystal technician C. F. Gallo, and employees of Xerox Corp. How are these reliable sources for basic research into quasar redshifts? They don't study the material. Ian knows this, but he continues his tactics anyway, in violation of his probation. I ask that he be banned from editting Wolf Effect. --ScienceApologist 13:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. My instinctive reaction was to block him to forestall further problems while htis is considered, but I have to say I'd be a lot happier if this were other than a bilateral dispute, given both of your past histories. Please make an effort to reach some kind of accommodation on Talk, or at least to encourage other editors to venture an opinion. I have told Ian to stop it, let's see if a shot across the bows has any effect. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't think anyone else has Wolf Effect on their watchlists. Will try talking. --ScienceApologist 16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Moby Dick[edit]

I have blocked this user for one week for continuing to stalk Cool Cat, in direct violation of his Arbcom ruling. The diffs in question are [12], [13] and [14]. Bastiqe demandez 20:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's a done deal you don't have to report it here, but it should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick#Log of blocks and bans. Thatcher131 01:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Appeal of unjustified block[edit]

(Details here.) The blocked user had (1) responded "makes for interesting reading!" where his name was used (in a link to the RfAr); (2) endorsed Elaragirl's summary in an RfC about her, with the words "Well said, Elaragirl!"; (3) posted supportively to Elaragirl's talk page. These were not forbidden by ArbCom, and cannot reasonably be termed "stalking" or "harassment" of Cool Cat. There are COI issues about this block; the blocking admin has already refused an unblock request (unless ArbCom tells him to unblock); thus I request ArbCom review this appeal and those linked details quickly so as not to let an unjustified block be prolonged. SAJordan talkcontribs 19:54, 10 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Instantnood POV-pushing at Single-party state[edit]

Three arbitration cases have been filed against Instantnood, regarding his POV-pushing and edit-warring on China-related articles.

  1. The first arbitration case closed prematurely.
  2. The second arbitration case resulted in him (and Huaiwei, who tried to stop Instantnood) being placed on probation and restrictions imposed on him.
  3. The third arbitration case resulted in him (and Huaiwei) being placed on indefinite general probation.

His actions have resulted in him being banned from many articles, including Singapore. After being banned from an article, he will move on to another article, and get banned from that article, and move on to another, and so on.

Recently, he has been POV-pushing and edit-warring on single-party state, insisting that Singapore be included in the list of single-party states. As a Singaporean, I know that we are a dominant-party system, not a single-party state, as we have elections and the opposition has 2 seats and 33% of the votes, despite facing discrimination imposed by the ruling party.

Instantnood made 3 reverts in slightly over 2 hours, although he did not violate 3RR.[15][16][17] He also made disruptive and deceptive edits on the talk page.[18][19]

His only supporter in the dispute is Regebro. Besides Huaiwei (who has also had sanctions imposed against him) and Vsion, Terence Ong and I agree that Singapore is not a single-party state.

I request that an administrator enforce the arbitration restrictions (such as probation) imposed on Instantnood, and if neccesary, impose further sanctions or start another arbitration case. In addition, as consensus is against him, and Singapore was not on the list of single-party states before the edit war started, I request that it be removed from the list.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I see the potential for a probation violation there but he last edited the article on November 5; I'd like to see some indication that he is returning to the issue before I ban him from it. I'm not going to take a position on the content dispute; you could ask for a third opinion or try to find a reliable source that supports your view that you can cite in the article. Thatcher131 16:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
As the Arbcom is less interested in factual correctness, but in the appriopriateness of behavior by wikipedians, lets concentrate on the later rather then the former. In this case, may I point out that I have often noticed instantnood's tendency in engaging in disruptive behavior pertaining to Singapore-related articles, in what I strongly suspect to be a tit-for-tat move from my edits pertaining to Hong Kong-related articles. Since the entire dispute boils down to a disagreement over the political status of HK on the international arena, it dosent come as too much of a surprise when Instantnood therefore partakes in enforcing an "undemocratic" label on Singapore, a stance which has noticibly gained in aggresiveness almost in tendem with what happens to HK-related articles. For this to happen over an extended period of about 2 years or more, I doubt it would boil down to mere coincidence. Instantnood clearly could not seperate personal emotions and ego from accurate representation of fact, and the upholding of wikipedia's NPOV policy.--Huaiwei 16:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Hildanknight, do you actually know what the original section title of that thread of discussion at talk:single-party state was [20]? Did you notice user:Nightstallion also made an revert to single-party state [21] [22]? (and those who want Singapore removed from the list are all Singaporeans, as according to their talk pages?) Could you please be reminded to provide the entirety of the facts? Thanks. — Instantnood 18:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you explain the relevance of "the original section title" and allegations on your disruptive behavior in that particular talkpage? May I also point out that it has been noticed that User:Nightstallion has repeatedly shown symphathy towards your political viewpoints by frequently reverting edits made by your "opponents" without any explaination. Why arent you providing full facts on this also?--Huaiwei 12:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate on how user:Nightstallion has shown sympathy, and tell what my politicial viewpoints are? (And meanwhile, what does explaination mean? Guess it isn't Singaporean English, yet I found no such word in dictionaries.) For the first question, who has insisted to change the section title in that particular talk page? — Instantnood 07:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Use of rollback in a content dispute is ,at best, frowned upon, and at worst, admin abuse. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I have blocked User:Instantnood for 24h for probation violation and have put him on a 1-revert per article per day term. Hopefully this will clear out any issues that are outstanding, and allow Instantnood to continue to make good contributions to Wikipedia. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I am satisfied with Instantnood receiving a 24-hour block for violating his probation. In addition, I agree with him being placed on 1RR, a restriction that applies to all articles. However, I'm not sure if administrators are empowered to place an editor on 1RR. If only the Arbitration Committee is empowered to place an editor on 1RR, can they do so only if a fourth arbitration is filed? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Such penalties are at the Administrator's discretion, although ArbCom or Jimbo may as always overturn them at their will. My best suggestion is to report again if he is edit warring, and he will be blocked for a greater term. The 1rr may be brought up in a fourth Arbitration if you wish, it would definitely "stick" more. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 22:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood Redux[edit]

It was brought to my attention that another war between User:Instantnood and User:Huaiwei was brewing on Talk:Single-party_state. In the course of looking into the dispute, I browsed through Instantnood's recent contributions; its pretty disturbing. Once again, Instantnood has gone on a spree of reverting Huaiwei, SchmuckyTheCat and other editors. Some of the edits he reverted had been stable since November 18th [23], [24], [25]. More than a third of his edits today have been reverts of the same type that lead to his probation. The last week long block doesn't seem to have resolved the problem entirely. I would support blocking for a longer period of time - any other opinions or ideas at better options? Shell babelfish 16:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Under his general probation he may be banned from the site on the judgement of 3 admins. I haven't looked over your new allegations yet, but if true I would support a site ban. His last site ban was two weeks, given 6 months ago, so I'm not sure we can conclude that it no effect; I would suggest another two monthsweeks. I'll look over his contribs tonight, plus we need a third admin. Thatcher131 19:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I am willing to be the third admin to subscribe to a ban, but would incline to 1 month rather than 2. Bucketsofg 21:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant 2 more weeks, since his pervious 2-week ban was 6 months ago, there is not obviously a case that 2 weeks is too short to modify his behavior. A month would not be out of line. Let me finish reviewing his edits. Thatcher131 21:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your planning to take necessary actions. As you may have already noticed, it's the edits by user:Huaiwei, user:Alanmak and user:SchmuckyTheCat that keeps the reverts persist. Read their arguments in talk pages and edit summaries, and anybody with some basic knowledge and analytical skills can be able to tell. I sincerely hope there are people, no matter mediators, administrators or members of the arbitration committee, to help bring the trouble to an end through real discussions. Block and ban is never helpful to anybody, nor to any article, to get out of such dispute. Thank you. — Instantnood 21:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The thing you seem to keep misunderstanding is that your reverting is incredibly disruptive. You've been the subject of multiple arbitration cases and eventually banned from a number of articles because you continue to revert and edit war instead of using the dispute resolution processes. You need to find another way of dealing with your concerns or avoid the articles that cause you this problem. Continuing to revert, especially when no one else saw fit to revert the changes in 3 weeks, just isn't at all productive and does nothing to resolve the situation. If you're having the same issues with multiple editors over the same disputes, you need to consider that you position may not be the majority and you need to develop consensus for your changes through rational discussion. Shell babelfish 22:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I have been calling for third parties to take part in discussion, yet very few people are willing to help. Administrators or members of the arbitration committee simply ask everyone to stop, without doing anything constructive to get the matter out of the trouble. There are many of these articles (and categories and templates) which the majority of editors are simply confortable in both ways I, and user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat prefer. They don't care what has happened with the articles and they edit based on whatever version latest by then. — Instantnood 22:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
My general view is that remedies should escalate. If the changes inspired by two weeks was only temporary, something more than two weeks is in order. Bucketsofg 22:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Unless something helpful and constructive is done, the problem would still be there even if all parties are blocked for weeks or months or longer. It's not like I don't discuss. Quite the contrary I want genuine discussion (please read the way they response). — Instantnood 22:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps Instantnood is the problem. Huaiwei and others got into edit wars because he started them. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

0RR for Instantnood?[edit]

There are a number of edits Instantnood makes that are genuinely useful and I'd hate to lose that because of his strong political beliefs. I don't think any time based ban on Instantnood is going to change the situation - it has not worked in the past. He returns to the same behavior and warring on the same articles. What has worked has been the page bans. An extrapolation on that would be a 0RR for Instantnood; once reverted (or changed) he cannot make the same edit again to the same article. He would be free of course, to make rational discussion for his edit on the talk page for someone else to do it. SchmuckyTheCat 04:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If you ban him from an article, he can continue his antics on another article. I support a sanction that applies to all articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Under 0RR, he could only move the antics once per article, that is managable. SchmuckyTheCat 05:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Since 0RR is a sanction that applies to all articles, I support this proposed remedy. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Could you please detail what you think my strong political beliefs are? In the past there was serious backbite towards using Republic of China to refer Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu, etc., collectively, nevertheless the official name has since been adopted by other official guideline. If that's political beliefs, it's rather like misunderstandings towards, and reluctance to accept, some comparatively lesser-known realities. — Instantnood 07:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
lesser known realities, yes, exactly. SchmuckyTheCat 07:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You may perhaps be interested to take at look at Wikipedia talk:categorisation. — Instantnood 19:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fourth arbitration case?[edit]

The mediation on the talk page will probably fail. We should consider escalating this to a fourth arbitration case against Instantnood, letting the arbitrators decide what further sanctions should be imposed on him. Besides the content dispute, there is sufficient misconduct by those involved to warrant a fourth arbitration case:

  • POV-pushing by Instantnood despite being placed on probation after his third arbitration case.
  • Personal attacks by Regebro: [26]
  • Personal attacks by Huaiwei: [27]
  • Possible administrator abuse by Nightstallion (using rollback in a content dispute): [28]

I'm not saying that we should take this to arbitration, just that we consider it. I know that arbitration is a last resort, and hope we can resolve this without resorting to arbitration.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's a content dispute (as you've concluded [29]) then why would the edits to the article and the remarks at the talk page be POV-pushing? — Instantnood 07:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
When other contributors try to combat POV-pushing attempts, a content dispute may result. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand User:Instantnood is on a probation, and that there is a long history of conflicts between him, Vsion and Huaiwei and perhaps others. This is unfortunate. However, I would like to point out that lthough there has been a heated debate, I at least have not noticed any personal attacks or other bad behaviour from Instantnood (although there have been a little from some other users). The dispute, which has had a request for mediation done earlier this week, is about Singapore status, basically if it is a democracy or not. User:Hildanknight's claim that Instantnood is POV-pushing is simply false. There has been some editwarring regarding the title of a section in the talk page, but that was Huaiwei who started and continued that by changing a section-title that Instantnood started, where in my opinion Instantnoods title is much more appropriate. I don't know if it's normaly acceptable behaviour, but it can not be blamed on Instantnood, and it is honestly rather silly to start disputing what the section title used in the dispute should be. ;)
I don't follow Instantnoods behaviour in general, but there have been no bad behaviour from him regarding Single-party state. Therefore it is rather difficult to see why this should in anyway be escalated into an RfC against him (or anyone else). To me this feels like you are trying to use threats of RfCs to indimidate him to fold in the debate. And when you start mentioning making an RfC against me as well, that only increases that feeling.
Yes, I agree. The mediation will probably fail. But that will not be because of lack of effort from my side, and it will not be because Instantnood has done anything wrong in this dispute. --Regebro 18:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Regebro, it was Huaiwei, not I, who threathened to file an RFC against you. In fact, I discouraged him from doing so. I admit I was mistaken about the edit warring over the section header.
If you read the three arbitration cases, you will know that Instantnood has been editing China-related articles to make them conform to his political views, which constitutes POV-pushing. This is why he has been placed on indefinite general probation, and banned from editing many articles.
As Huaiwei, one of the users who tried to stop his POV-pushing, is from Singapore, Instantnood started edit warring and POV-pushing on Singapore-related articles. Instantnood is trying to make the Single-party state article conform to his political view that Singapore is a single-party state. The dispute would not have taken place if Instantnood had not started POV-pushing on Single-party state.
Instantnood has constantly found ways to get around the restrictions that have been imposed on him. Hopefully, a fourth arbitration case would stop his edit warring and POV-pushing once and for all. In addition, the arbitrators will investigate the conduct of others involved in the dispute, especially Huaiwei and Regebro.
I don't like to get involved in people politics; I find contributing to articles a more productive and enjoyable activity. I have a chess tournament tomorrow, so I need to get some sleep. Good night.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I used "you" as the plural here, sorry if that caused any confusion. Indeed, Huaiwei has threatened with RfC against me, and you are threatening with arbitration against Instantnood, although in fact none of us has done anything wrong in this case.
I have read the arbitration cases, and therefore I know that Instantnood and Huaiwei has been editwarring. Both are on probation because both of them used editwarring instead of discussion to push theior POV. You are incorrectly trying to blame this dispute on Instantnood, although he is not the cause to the conflict in Single-party state.
If you don't like to be involved in people politics, perhaps you should stop making this a people politics case? Up until you added it to this noticeboard it wasn't about people politics, and in fact, on the talk-page it still is about the factual issue, and I wasn't aware of your accusations against Instantnood until yesterday. Maybe we can stop this and again make it a factual debate? That would be constructive. --Regebro 15:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Instantnood et al are currently in Mediation regarding the Single Party State dispute, if this is what this is about, I suggest that Arbitration be stayed at least until the Mediation is closed. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:NuclearUmpf[edit]

NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction under the username Zer0faults, he has changed to the new name noted above. The final decision in their case is here: [30]

Constant edit warring and personal attacks at September 11, 2001 attacks

The following diffs show the offending behavior

All offending behavior refer to the finding linked above and specifially to this sentence: He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring

[31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

Summation

He is insisting against any consensus that a link to a POV timeline be included, and that a NPOV tag be added to the article. There have been a handfull of editors taking turns removing his additions but it needs to stop, none of us should have to put up with this...and I don't like his personal attacks on the talk page and edit summaries

Reported by: Rx StrangeLove 16:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you view the talk page the concensus is against RX Strangelove and Tom Harrison. Oddly this was posted after I made an AN/I post regarding Tom Harrison,[37] the only other person objecting. The discussion is here for those who actually want to read everything and not a single dif or two. Further I have left messages on Tom Harrisons talk page which he has ignored and not responded to, yet continued to remove the link, which is the topic of the AN/I post. I ask RX Strangelove to discuss the topic based on WP:EL and he claimed the site was anonymous and should not be included, I gave them the registrars information and explained that "anonymous site" often referes to geocities etc. (free web hosts). They then claimed it was a wiki, which was disputed since you submit info, not edit directly, they then stated they just dont like the site ... They say there is a no concensus for its addition, but its Tom and RX disagreeing with PTR, myself, Lovelight, slipgrid and SavoirFaireIsEverywhere and SalvNaut, the concesus is clearly against them, and Tom refuses to participate on talk and RX has jumped from excuse to excuse with noone agreeing with them. --NuclearZer0 16:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't intend to go back and forth here so I'll just point out that there is significant opposition to both the timeline link the the POV tag. The editor count provided above is not accurate to say the least. NuclearUmpf's assertions about my motives and arguments are also incorrect. Rx StrangeLove 17:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I never commented on your "motives" so I am not sure what you are talking about. it is however odd timing as noted that you would file this after I make an AN/I request regarding the only other person supporting your reverts. Can you lay out your arguement here then for all to read on why the link should not be included according to WP:EL, and I will lay out my reason. Let admins decide who makes the greater point and put this to rest. --NuclearZer0 17:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Outside view from uninterested party: Not commenting on the applicability of the link, but Zer0faults has been engaged in contentious editing, almost to the point of edit warring and something should be done per his arbitration probation from last time. Perhaps a block for a day or something? You'll have to excuse me for not knowing the appropriate amount of time if one day is too short or too long. --Ali'i 17:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I can review this later tonight, in the mean time I have protected the page to stop the edit warring. Any other admin is free to review the situation before I get back to it, of course. Thatcher131 17:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I count 18 insertions of the link by 5 editors (11 from NuclearUmpf) and 17 removals by 7 editors (5 each by Tom H and Rx Strange) over the past 7 days, with no attempt at dispute resolution, by editors who should know better. When a group of editors can't come to an agreement on matters of judgement they are expected to use the dispute resolution process such as a third opinion, RFC or mediation. I'm not going to sanction one editor out of a 12-person edit war. No action at this time. Thatcher131 01:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thatcher... I have sent you an email regarding this decision. For you others, it basically stated that two wrongs do not make a right. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
See also this comment under similar circumstances. You are free to seek a second or even third opinion. Thatcher131 13:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Iantresman[edit]

On the article Electric universe (concept), User:Iantresman removed a rejoinder that correctly characterized the subject as a pseudoscience. This is in direct violation of the terms of his probation regarding the editting of subjects related to science and pseudoscience. --ScienceApologist 19:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and I don't know much about what happened before between the two of you, but I agree. I can be quite bitchy about insufficient sources myself, but it's right there, and it does not "use Wikipedia as a reference" as Iantresman claims, but merely as one example. He could have posted on the talk page suggesting the removal of that passage, instead he just removed it. At the very least, it's bad style. Kncyu38 23:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

More problems. After stating I would explain all of my edits on the talkpage, Ian moved unilaterally to revert all of my contributions to the plasma cosmology article. I reverted once and asked him not to revert back since I am discussing all my edits on the talkpage. --ScienceApologist 15:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, may I ask what ArbCom case does this relate with. Thanks. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 15:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience --ScienceApologist 15:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Have you tried talking to Iantresman on the first issue? —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 16:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
See the talkpage. --ScienceApologist 17:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I've gone through mediation with this user on multiple occasions. What good is another round going to do? --ScienceApologist 20:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Andries[edit]

user:SSS108 alleges that user:Andries repeatedly violates the arbcom ruling on Sathya Sai Baba in the article Robert Priddy by inserting a link critical of Sathya Sai Baba authored and managed by the subject himself i.e. Robert Priddy. See talk:Robert Priddy and See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Proposed_decision. A request for clarification of the arbcom on this issue by user:Andries was ignored by the arbcom and move by the clerk user:FloNight to the talk page of the arbcom case. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba.Andries 19:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am personally getting tired of Andries filing all of these frivolous complaints, continually attempting to circumvent the ArbCom ruling. Andries was given a warning not to include the link he is trying to include: View Warning. As I have stated before, Andries is attempting to push his Anti-Sai agenda despite the ArbCom ruling because he was the former webmaster and current "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for the largest Anti-Sai-Baba website on the internet. His agenda is clear and he should stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox and battleground for his Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba/Cult/Guru POV. He has no intention on stopping [38] and has inserted the link 4 times, 3 times today so far. See: [39][40][41][42].... SSS108 talk-email 19:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I am also getting tired of your inappropriate attempts to minimize criticism of Sathya Sai Baba plus your disinformation campaign about me as a webmaster of www.exbaba.com Your own website correctly states another name. Andries 19:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I am only following WP:EL that says that the homepage of the subject in quesiton should be linked to. Andries 20:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, that link is not Priddy's homepage. His homepage is already listed on his wiki-page. The link you are trying to add is an Anti-Sai site specifically attacking Sathya Sai Baba. See what I have to deal with? SSS108 talk-email 20:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again it fits the wikipedia definition of a homepage and hence should be linked to. From Homepage
"A personal homepage is a World Wide Web site belonging to one person. It can be about that person or about something he or she is interested in. It is used for informative or entertainment purposes, but not for commercial reasons."
Andries 20:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Robert Priddy has 3 Anti-Sai websites in addition to his homepage. His homepage link is already provided on his wiki-page and his 3 defamatory Anti-Sai websites are in violation of the arbcom ruling because they contain wholly negative, critical, personal stories composed of original research. You can whine, hiss and gnash your teeth all you like. It won't change the fact that admin already commented on this issue and said you are wrong for trying to include that link: View Warning. Period. End of argument. SSS108 talk-email 23:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I understand that you two are having a problem with a contentious link, if you would like, I could try to mediate this matter if you would like. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation is fine with me. SSS108 has refused mediation once for this dispute because he stated that this dispute has already has been dealt with by the arbcom decision regarding Sathya Sai Baba. So we have a dispute about how to proceed with dispute resolution. Andries 19:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation is fine with me. I will agree to have this issue mediated. SSS108 talk-email 16:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should agree on a venue for this, since I doubt the Arbitration Clerks would be too amiable to it occurring here. Perhaps User:Wizardry Dragon/LinkMediation or a similar page? ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 19:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Andries has been informed of this mediation offer [43] and he has not yet to agree to it. Until he agrees, there is no use in removing this thread because Andries had past problems accepting mediation (despite expressing a willingness to engage in mediation). See former medation attempt SSS108 talk-email 22:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Final warning applied to User talk:Andries. He will be banned from the article and blocked from the site if he adds the link again. While Wizardry Dragon's offer to mediate is appreciated, mediation can not override a direct finding of the arbitration case, see here. Andries should be encouraged to look for negative information about Sai Baba that meets the reliable source policy, is not self-published or based on personal experiences of the author, and does not violate the arbitration decision. Thatcher131 16:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Blocked After my warning [44], instead of linking to Robert Priddy's personal anti-Sai web site, he described its contents in the article without linking [45]. I have blocked him for 24 hours and banned him from the article for a month [46]. Thatcher131 19:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist[edit]

Reluctantly I note the following issues, which have occurred since our recent Arbitration case and its Remedies, which closed on 3 December 2006 :

  • "Ian's major problem is that he is a bean-counter, not a researcher"[47]
  • "Ian lied about consensus."[48]
  • "Ian lied about acheiving

consensus"[49] (subsequently removed,[50], and subsequently apologised,[51])

  • ".. plasma cosmology advocates themselves are pretty ignorant of the current state of the field .."[52]
  • "It is a waste of my time to submit a paper to peer review refuting a bunch of amateurish drivel .. The scientific community doesn't suffer fools gladly, and doesn't suffer those who even entertain such fools"[53]
  • Note: ScienceApologist had previously reported me here for using poor sources, see Problems with User:Iantresman and Wolf Effect, characterising my sources as having "included a science writer (not a scientist): Jeff Kanipe, a self-employed crystal technician C. F. Gallo, and employees of Xerox Corp".
  • I think this characterization changes completely when I point out that the sources I used were all peer reviewed sources, and quite consistent with Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, and the Arbitration case's emphasis on Appropriate sources.
  • Trying to discredit an individual instead of criticizing their work is a clear example of an Ad hominem. For example, removing information from a Wiki article,[54] that is sourced to a peer reviewed journal, claiming that the author is "not a reliable source", repeatedly,[55][56], must contravene WP:LIVING too.
  • I note: Being bold reminds us "don't be reckless .. does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories"
  • ScienceApologist did just that, without group discussion.
  • I felt the edits were controversial, so I reverted the edits,[57], and begun a discussion, providing a criticism on nearly all the edits,[58]
  • ScienceApologist reverted them, without discussion for the second time,[59]
  • A belated discussion is going on in a section called "Many edits"
  • After removing a statement I felt was poorly sourced,[60], and explained on the Talk page,[61] ScienceApologist told me his position,[62] and restored the text without discussion,[63]
  • For good measure, he reported me above,[64], which an Administrator commented on.[65]
  • For further measure, he removed from the article a verifiable description of the subject, and replaced it with the controversial statement in the very first sentence,[66].
  • Ironically the statement in question is sourced to an article that is (a) not peer reviewed (b) written by a technology writer,[67]. While both are OK with me in principle, you would have thought that ScienceApologist would remove it since it fails his own standards for reliable sources described above.
  • While ScienceApologist says that he is "going to try to assume good faith"[68], in addition to the above, he maintains that:
  • I am "continuing to push [my] POV in articles in contravention of the arbcom case."[69]
  • "I'm not going to entertain your POV-pushing any longer."[70]
No edit diffs have ever been provided showing that I am pushing my POV, rather than describing someone else's verifiable POV.

These examples have come form articles that include Electric universe (concept), Plasma_cosmology, William G. Tifft, Wolf effect, and have previous included articles such as Intrinsic_redshift, Redshift, Tired light, and others. --Iantresman 23:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Your best bet is to leave SA alone, also to stop your obdurate insistence on your preferred form of words as per talk:Wolf effect . Try exploring compromise. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • ScienceApologist calls me a liar, and I should leave him alone! My apologies for being an unwitting target!
  • And I think you're confusing the discussions we're having at Wolf effect, with these issues here.
  • So how shall I compromise being a liar? Shall we call it half-truth then? --Iantresman 20:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I apologized for calling you a "liar", Ian, even though the evidence of your duplicity was given in both the arbitration and in the points referenced above. --ScienceApologist 20:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I acknowledged your apology above, but I note that you are still suggesting that I was duplicitous (that's an ad hominem). By itself, I'd have let it go, but add to it the "bean counter" quip, and issues regarding deprecation, and edit warring, is getting somewhat weary, and not constructive.
  • Add to that you being the subject of two arbitration cases in as many months, resulting in a caution and a counseling, I think there's a good chance they'll make you stand in the corner... and then may be it will be the naughty step. --Iantresman 21:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, for someone who bemoans ad hominems, you sure don't like to take your own medicine. I suppose that's another wonderful example of your duplicity though. --ScienceApologist 21:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I feel compelled to point out that there is a reason between duplicity and hypocrisy. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 22:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


Why is nothing being acted upon? Even today alone on the Plasma cosmology page and talk page SA again displayed many of these traits. We should just leave him alone? Gladly, if he would leave the plasma cosmology article alone. Ban him from editing this article just as you did to E. Lerner, and you would hear a lot less complaint about the matter. -Ionized 00:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Is anything happening yet? How much longer must we wait before action is taken to prohibit SA from editing plasma cosmology? -Ionized 21:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for that. If it can't be resolved at Arbitration enforcement, where can it be resolved?
  • What about the other issues of deprecation and edit warring? --Iantresman 23:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
As I suggested above, I would give an honest try to the mediation cabal. As far as the other issues, they are not covered in the case, I cautioned ScienceApologist, and I would like to request that all parties in this dispute maintain civility, and remember that we are working on an encyclopedia. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 00:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they were all covered by the case, if you click on the links in the bullet points above, it will take you to the findings of fact, and the Remedy indicated that "ScienceApologist is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines", and the bullet points are all covered by policies and guidelines. --Iantresman 00:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I missed that part of the remedy. I still stand by what I said, I think that this needs resolved elsewhere. Just simply cautioning and banning the participants will not resolve the issue. I highly suggest that this be taken to the mediation cabal, and a good faith effort be made to resolve the dispute there. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 01:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We have tried for the last 18 months to get this resolved, see Previous attempts at dispute resolution are numerous and failed. This is why it culminated in the Arbitration case, whose results are binding.
  • In the same case, another editor was banned allegedly for "self promotion" (no evidence was presented to show improper editing), which is part of Wikipedia:Autobiography... a guideline.
  • WP:CIVIL and No Personal Attacks are official policy for which there is NO DEFENSE.
  • Deprecation and using ad hominems is in violation of WP:LIVING, an official policy for which there is NO DEFENSE.
  • The Arbitration case already found that "ScienceApologist has edit warred" and was "cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines". My points above, seem to show not one or two, but many extensive violations of the findings of the Arbitration case.
  • To suggest going back to mediation, is covering old ground that has been shown not to work. --Iantresman 14:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, banning SA from editing specific articles would indeed help to resolve the situation. -Ionized 23:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
SA was merely cautioned in the ArbComm--no admin has the authority to ban him from any article. Iantresman, by contrast, is on probation; if his editing becomes disruptive, he can be banned from specific articles. Bucketsofg 00:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Any editor may be blocked for disruption, and I think a case could be made that flagrantly ignoring his "caution" constituted disruption, depending on the circumstances. I have not considered the details of this case. The other remedy would be to post to RFAR under requests for clarification and ask for the case to be reopened to consider probation. This would probably not get off the ground unless you can show that your position has the support of uninvolved admins or editors. Again, I have not reviewed this report. Thatcher131 06:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
If what is cited above is the worst that he's done, there is little ground for complaint. Again Iantresman is on probation. A quick glance at his recent contributions suggests to me that he is closer to being banned than ScienceApologist. Bucketsofg 10:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that there is little ground for complaint. This is about a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' if you don't mind the analogy. Thatcher's statement above is the most unbiased I have seen yet and clearly contains ideas for the next step in resolution. Whether or not Ian's list is the 'worst that SA has done', the fact remains that disruption has taken place. Currently article warring has subsided while discussion takes place on the talk page (Plasma_cosmology), however this pause was preceded by a large number of undiscussed and inappropriate edits made by SA. Right now is the sheep, but the wolf will inevitably return, just as it has in the past. -Ionized 02:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Urgent attention is needed in this matter. There is currently a threat to remove the entire Plasma_cosmology article and merge it with an article that describes a stub from Plasma Cosmology, Ambiplasma. If anything, the reverse should happen, Ambiplasma was Alfven's original framework within Plasma Cosmology, it is not the entirety of Plasma Cosmology. Ambiplasma, if I remember right, was originally in the Plasma Cosmology article, and was removed by an editor claiming it had nothing to do with Plasma Cosmology. Now, there is much irony in this, SA is now claiming that indeed all of plasma cosmology FITS within Ambiplasma, yet if you look on the history of Ambiplasma, the top edit (at this time) is by SA with the comment "(→Analysis of Alfvén's model - taking out pc cruft. This is an article about ambiplasma which is distinct from plasma cosmology.)" How much longer must we wait before real action is taken to prevent SA from disrupting the plasma cosmology article? Please help. -Ionized 03:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, the evidence is all there, just peruse the Plasma Cosmology talk pages over the past 2 weeks. Take a look at the very bottom where PC is finally defined from a broader philosophical basis. These attempts to remove, revert, discredit, disrupt, are becoming absolutely unnecessary and absurd. It is clear that PC exists as a framework, and should be given its own space. We need help stopping SA, the behavior is quite flagrant as far as I can tell. PLEASE help, what is the next step to take to get SA permanently blocked from editing the Plasma_cosmology article? -Ionized 03:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I see nothing in ScienceApologist's behaviour that would justify a caution, much less a ban. His merger proposal is not a breach of the ArbComm remedy, it is, after all, merely a proposal, one that will attract a consensus or not. Make your argument against merger there, not here. Bucketsofg 03:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Done- PC talk page -Ionized 04:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
However I must point out that the situation is changing definition and escalating, and the merger will likely be attempted regardless of consensus reached. -Ionized 05:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei[edit]

Huaiwei (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction after repeated editwarring with Instantnood (talk · contribs). The final decision in their case is here and here

In this case Huaiwei is continually reverting edits without discussion, and with incorrect claims. (He so far only reverted it a few time, so this may be a bit early, but my internet access may only be intermittant during the holidays and revert warring is his general mode of behaviour despite being under sanctions for it).

He is doing these edits because he doesn't want wikipedia to write about the political system of Singapore, this is a continuation of a dispute I'm involved in on Single-party state and I even tried to appease him by not writing about Singapore. But he doesn't discuss it, but instead, as usual, just tries to make it into an editwar.

Reported by: Regebro 20:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to Regebro's claims, there has actually been exhausting discussions on the political status on Singapore in Talk:Single-party state‎, where he failed to gain concensus from the majority of discussion participants. He proposed a solution to move the offending entries to Dominant-party system, which was palatable to most. However, he continues to assert his POV by insisting on keeping descriptive text (eg: lack of free speech) from the former list. Over in Dominant-party system, however, it is noted that no such description exists for every other entity, which I felt was probably so to avoid introducting value judgements. Despite repeated explanations on why I am removing these text and reformatting the new entries, he continously reverts to his preferred version by insisting that I add descriptive text for all other entries [74] [75]. He then claims he did not introduce POV, saying he is only doing a "rearrangement" [76].
Regebro continues to launch personal attacks against those who oppose him factually, such as in the above, where he claims I have an agenda to censor wikipedia's coverage on Singapore. I find this kind of comment extremely insulting and uncalled for. His blatant lies on my supposed failure to discuss my edits further gives an indication on the level of his personal integrity, and raises questions on his ability to report disputes factually and rationally, and not as a result of an emotional backlash.--Huaiwei 12:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Your current reverts have nothing to do with the political status of Singapore. Singapore is not even touched by these reverts. In short, everything you write above is factually incorrect or irrelevant. All I want is that you start respecting Wikipedia polices and practices. --Regebro 16:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

More Arthur Ellis socks[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren Kinsella and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel Marsden restricted User:Arthur Ellis to a single account and banned him from editing articles on Canadian politics, including Rachel Marsden. He is violating both of these with 209.217.79.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Stompin' Tom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Torontothegood 20:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced Stompin Tom is an Ellis sock. You can ask for Checkuser to look into it. There's not much that can be done with one-shot edits from an IP address he can change by unplugging his modem for a minute. Thatcher131 01:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

New Arthur Ellis sock[edit]

Checkuser confirms that User:Stompin' Tom is a sock of User:Arthur Ellis at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis Bucketsofg 01:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

One month ban reset. Thatcher131 02:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist [2][edit]

In addition to the issues that I raised above (see "User:ScienceApologist"), I note the following issues, that I feel are relevant to our Arbitration case Remedies. I also note that policy infractions are not dependent on ArbCom remedies; ignore such allegations is a bit like turning a blind eye to someone charged with assault, because the assaulted has a speeding ticket.

  • "The usual suspects are only able to publish in an engineering journal about their ideas related to astrophysics because Peratt happens to be a personal friend of the editor"[77]
This statement suggests impropriety, and fails WP:LIVING. It would never be seen in a national newspaper for obvious reasons, and shouldn't appear on a top-15 Web site. Peratt is a highly respected plasma physicst,[78].
  • "I'm not interested in knowing your or Ian's thoughts on the matter of what's important in plasma cosmology"[79]
  • "I'm not interested in knowing about your opinions on plasma cosmolgy as a subject/framework/piece of art."[80]
  • "posturing by the Ianpeacock"[81] (Noted by Admin Bucketsofg,[82])
  • "Ian is misleading you"[83]
  • "I'm going to declare this conversation over."[84]
  • After ScienceApologist removed a verifiable statement from one article,[85], I discussed it,[86], but was warned that I could be banned,[87]
  • "any attempt to expand the number of articles on these subjects will be opposed by me as POV-forks."[88]
  • "I do have an agenda to decrease the visibility of plasma cosmology in relation to its marginalization in the outside world. "[89]
  • Others have commented on ScienceApologist' behavior, noting:
  • "your intent is clear [..]There has got to be something in Wiki rules that disallows this type of obvious behavior."[90]
  • "As soon as one complaint is addressed and removed, another one is arbitrarily brought up. This is clearly an attempt, as stated before, to remove content from the article REGARDLESS of a solid reason why."[91]
  • In addition to the "Many edits" described in my earlier set of issues, above, and before such edits could be full discussed...
  • Numerous edits to Plasma Cosmology,[92]
  • Removing a section before discussion,[93]
  • Suggestion of merging with other articles,[94]
The mere quantity of such edits without prior discussion is disruptive, as can be ascertained from the Plasma Cosmology discussion page, since the Arbitration case closed.

And so it goes on. --Iantresman 18:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding deprecation, nothing in the ArbComm ruling on my reading of it hinders SA's freedom to deprecate, provided that he does so in a civil manner. I see nothing objectionable in the diffs you provide. On incivility, I have cautioned SA on name-calling, but most of the examples you provide are, when read within context, within the bounds of acceptable civility. On policy, nothing in SA's comments seems against policy--indeed, when he talks about POV-forks, he is advocating adherence to policy, not the opposite. On edit-warring, nothing in his edits strikes me as warring. Perhaps another admin will see it differently, but I see no grounds for action in what you've provided. Bucketsofg 18:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for taking the time to look through the issues.
  • Deprecation of living people is a direct violation of WP:LIVING which refers to "biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages", and "Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content" and "Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims."
  • "ScienceApologist's ArbCom ruling noted that he had already been "Deprecating, and the Remedy noted that he is "cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines" (ie. WP:LIVING). I believe that suggesting impropriety of a respected scientists fails this policy. --Iantresman 18:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding Incivility, I believe there is no defense, let alone a defense of "context". When he says "I am misleading", what he means is that my sources chosen may be misleading (the first is an ad hominem, the latter a valid criticism). And when instead of discussing an edit (civil), he threatens that my edits will be considered disruptive and I may be banned, this is a "More serious examples" given in WP:CIVIL (the first is constructive and civil, the latter is an nonconstructive veiled threat and incivil).
  • WP:BOLD tells us that it "does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories". To do so once may be considered bad etiquette. To do so repeatedly, and following on from an ArbCom decision which stated that ScienceApologist is "cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines", I feel diverges from the ArbCom results. --Iantresman 18:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not convinced. Perhaps Thatcher, who often polices here, will see things differently. Bucketsofg 19:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading over the diffs provided, I can see where both Iantresman and ScienceApologist could assume a little more good faith in each other. Therefore I am going to caution both sides in this dispute to Assume good faith. Try solving your issues by other means, like the WP:MEDCAB. I think both of you are excellent contributors, and with a bit of effort from both of you, these problems can be resolved. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 21:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you be a bit more specific, and provide some example diffs on which you feel I should be cautioned for not assuming good faith? It's all very well suggesting that we try WP:MEDCAB, but having been through a dozen dispute resolution processes before the ArbCom case, it is clear that it doesn't work. --Iantresman 23:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
From WP:AGF "In allowing anyone to edit, we must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." ScienceApologist has implied numerous times that his intent is to belittle the Plasma_cosmology article. A quote "You are correct, sir. I do have an agenda to decrease the visibility of plasma cosmology in relation to its marginalization in the outside world." -SA At this point, I REFUSE to 'assume good faith' in ScienceApologist, as he has demonstrated over time that he intends to destroy our efforts to build a good article on Plasma_cosmology. Any further refusal of action on the part of administrators to block SA from editing Plasma_cosmology will further erode the good faith I currently reserve for the administration here. -Ionized 22:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that you are finding it difficult to assume that I'm acting in good faith in the decisions I have been making. That doesn't change the fact that I'm not convinced by your complaints: SA has a different idea about what a good article about PC is. If a consensus can be formed, great. If not, admins will have to get involved, but be careful about that, since the ArbComm ruling makes action against you more likely than against SA. Again, perhaps one of the other admins will see it differently. Bucketsofg 22:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"..since the ArbComm ruling makes action against you more likely than against SA." If that is the case, then clearly I am simply wasting my time attempting to contribute knowledge to Wikipedia, just as I was three years ago when all of the same type of warring was taking place on the Plasma_cosmology and associated pages. Inaction is the method for dealing with people like ScienceApologist (except for the recent Ad Hom he made against Ian, I appreciated that Bucketsofq at least said something to him about that single incident out of many), and baseless threats are the method for dealing with people like me. Now, since maybe you are just trying to give a friendly warning, I will take your comment more lightly. But I am hard pressed to imagine what logical reasons a committee could find to make an arbitrary ruling against me, taken in context my contributions are made in as professional and proper a manner as possible when dealing with these types of opponents. I was worried about the Plasma_cosmology article first and foremost, though indeed I have become concerned that such blatant misbehavior on the part of SA can continue because of a very improperly handled recent ArbCom case and refusal to enforce any ruling or warning made against SA within said case. All signs indeed point to a broader agenda. I admit it is a bit concerning that it appears as the recent case has set a bad precedent, if you feel that action against me is now more likely (for whatever reason.) If that is the case, so be it, I would only see irony in the situation. Regardless, my complaints really are futile after all, and I do understand this. SA is just the latest opponent to Plasma cosmology, the article has had many before he was around, and even if he was banned from the article, surely more opponents would take his place. So if you see me become less active again, it isn't because of any unwarranted threats from an admin, it is because I recognize the futility of defending real science when surrounded by technicians. In the end, I respect your decision of inaction, because the status quo demands it. -Ionized 21:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you're finding your experience at wikipedia so frustrating. I hope that you don't leave, but find a way to contribute. Be that as it may, this page is not the place for you to convince me to back your version of Plasma Cosmotology or anything else. It's a place to ask for enforcement of arbcomm decisions. SA was cautioned to be civil. If you have new reports to make about his civility, or some other policy violation, make it. Otherwise do your best to soldier on. Again, I'm only one admin; if another admin sees this differently, he or she is free to act. Bucketsofg 23:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, ScienceApologist is "cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines".[95] Presumably civility is taken as read, being one of Wikipedia's main policy... but even then, he can get away with characterising people as bean counters,[96], being "pretty ignorant"[97], fools,[98], and professional improprietory.[99] --Iantresman 23:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. The links you give are now weeks old, and some of them I think were considered above. I cautioned SA last week, and he committed himself to be civil. If you have something since thn, I'll try to look at it. Bucketsofg 00:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist [3][edit]

In addition to the issues that I raised above (see "User:ScienceApologist", and User:ScienceApologist [2]), I note the following where ScienceApologist writes:

"I am beginning to be of the opinion that this entire monstrosity may deserve deletion as it may be doomed to be a haven for original research, but I'm not going to give up yet. I ask that other editors join me in making a reliable article about the pathology of these people who advocate this "electric universe" idea."[100]

This demonstrates two contraventions of the ArbCom remedies which requested that ScienceApologist is "cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines"[101]:

  • 1. Disruptive editing:
  • The article has survived an AFD on 20 July 2005,[102], but ScienceApologist deleted it anyway,[103] under his old Username Joshuaschroeder,[104]
  • User Woohookitty noted that "You can't do what you did and circumvent it 6 hours after the vote closes. That would constitute disrupting Wikipedia and trying to circumvent it's policies."[105]
  • As I pointed out in the ArbCom, this is not the first time that ScienceApologist has blanked an article,[106]
  • As I pointed out above, ScienceApologist's editing is not "Bold" but reckless, and that editors shouldn't "make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories"
  • ie. ScienceApologist's editing is both disruptive, and, shows intent to be disruptive.
  • 2. Personal attacks and deprecation of living people
  • ScienceApologist writes that he wants other editors to make "a reliable article about the pathology of these people".
  • This is clearly an ad hominem and demonstrates that the article subject is secondary.
  • It is also in contravention of WP:LIVING which prohibits negative comments about living people in articles and talk pages.
  • As I (and ScienceApologist) consider myself to be "one of those people", this is also yet another personal attack against me.
  • ScienceApologist is also suggesting to another editor that he is ".. too accomodating of Ian's POV-pushing and you are too critical of me for guarding Wikipedia against promoters of pseudoscience." This is not assuming good faith, and discrediting me with the pseudoscience quip, which is yet another personal attack.

I believe this is the third set of examples which I believes shows that ScienceApologist is not upholding his ArbCom caution, let alone the policies and guidelines which the majority of editors abide. --Iantresman 17:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • On point #1, you say that you brought this to the attention of ArbComm, which would make it inappropriate for me to punish him now. On point #2, you provide no diffs of behaviour that is (1) recent (2) specifically and clearly in violation of some policy of widipedia. Please note that frank assertions about the quality of a source is part of determining what is a reliable source, and frank evaluation of the quality of arguments is part of successful editing. Provided that he does not pursue this to an extent that violates WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, I am not going to repremand him for it. Also, I advise you to be careful about what you are asking for here. If you drag me or some other admin into this, we're also going to look closely at your behaviour in light of the arbcomm ruling. This exchange between you and Ionized raises concerns with me about the good-faith of the appeals that both of you have brought here. Bucketsofg 17:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The first statement I quoted starting "I am beginning to be of the opinion..." is a current diff,[107]
  • The examples in point #1 shows a history of deleting and blanking, which other Admins have described as possibly "disruptive". His recent statement indicates further intent to do the same.
  • Again, the quote beginning "I am beginning to be of the opinion..." is current,[108], and includes the phrase "a reliable article about the pathology of these people". The subject of the sentence is "these people", and the attribute is "the pathology". Without a source, this is an emphatic ad hominem that fails both WP:CIVIL and WP:LIVING. It would be no different to discussing "administrators" and asking editors to write an article about "the dishonesty of these people", rather than perhaps asking editors to contribute to an article on the flaws in the Arbitration process.
  • I am quite happy for you "to look closely at [my] behaviour", and note that whatever you find, does not excuse ScienceApologist of his responsibilities. --Iantresman 18:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I can see nothing in any of this that warrents any action. Bucketsofg 18:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It is absurd that this warrants no action. So this means I am free to delete the BigBang article?(sarcasm) This isn't about Ian it is about SA and his behavior, his threats, his ignorance of policy, his constant disruption and threats to delete an article that was on Wiki long before he was. And he calls us pathological? -Ionized 18:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I see nothing wrong with making the statement that I made. -Ionized 20:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note to other admins. I'm making a full investigation and it may take some time. Please consult with me before intervening here. Bucketsofg 20:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Findings[edit]

In the matter of User:Iantresman's complaint against User:ScienceApologist, after reviewing the relevant Arbitration cases, reviewing all involved editors' edits since closing, and much of the previous case, I find that SA's actions are not sufficiently problematic to justify formal sanction. Iantresman's complaints in my view are minor and many are misleading. Indeed, I'm concerned that Iantresman's complaints here are part of a long series of complaints stretching back over the year that seem perilously close to vexatious litigation. Since (1) this implies a certain aggressiveness, (2) Iantresman's remedy called for his being "banned from any article or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing", and (3) several, including me, have found his editing to be disruptive (cf. [109], [110], [111], and [112]), I find that Iantresman has indeed disrupted through aggressive biased editing. After careful consideration and consultation with other admins, I impose the following penalty. Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is to be blocked for 24 hours for disruption and banned for 3 weeks for aggressive biased editing from Wolf effect, Plasma cosmology, and Electric universe (concept) and their talk pages. This decision will be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience Bucketsofg 00:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist [4][edit]

Further to the ArbCom remedies which requested that ScienceApologist is "cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines"[113], and in addition to the issues mentioned earlier, I would like to raise the following which I believe contravenes policy:

  • ScienceApologist has begun an AfD on the Electric universe (concept) here, which he is entitled to do so. However:
  • I believe that the reasons ScienceApologist gave for the AfD were misleading, although I respect he is entitled to his view. I responded with my own comments, but ScienceApologist has removed them from the discussion page, to the talk page,[114] This is uncivil at best, worse, the "Wikipedia:Deletion policy" page, an official policy page, says in the section "Commenting on a listing for deletion" that "Normally you should not remove any statements from any deletion discussion.". This is not the first time ScienceApologist has removed material from Deletion discussion page, see [115][116][117]
  • Having moved my comments to the Talk page, ScienceApologist responded by intermixing his comments with mine, making it difficult for others to read mine. This practice is not allowed in ArcCom cases, and the "Talk page guidelines" section on "Layout" tells us to "Answer a post underneath it". ScienceApologist is not a new user, and is well aware of this.
  • "Wikipedia:Deletion policy" in the section "Abuse of deletion process" tells us that "It should also be noted that packing the discussion .. meatpuppets (advertising or soliciting of desired views) does not reflect a genuine consensus,", yet ScienceApologist has advertised the AfD on the Wikipedia talk:Notability (science) page,[118]. This is also a contravention of policy.
  • It also turns out that ScienceApologist is involved with editing the "Wikipedia:Notability (science)" article,[119], so there is a potential conflict of interest.
  • All in all, I note (1) several contraventions of policy and guidelines, and, (2) an AfD in which there appears to be irregularities, and I can't see how it can be fair. --Iantresman 16:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


  • With all due respect, this is the fourth report in a short span you've submitted on him. Take a step back, a few deep breaths, and disengage if necessary. To be blunt, you come off as having an axe to grind at this point. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 16:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, let me point out that there was an ArbCom case which concluded that ScienceApologist is "cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines" (an odd conclusion, since it applies to the rest of us without requiring an ArbCom decision).
  • Either ScienceApologist is respecting policies and guidelines, or he isn't. He's already called me a bean counter [120] and having lied [121] twice [122]. He's suggested professional impropriety of a living person [123], and numerous other examples relating to editing.
  • If a tree in a forest unfairly overshadowed the others, I think you'd grind an axe too. --Iantresman 17:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I wouldn't. Such nursed slights as you seem to have are divisive, create a negative environment on the encyclopedia, and poison the well - many editors aren't going to want to touch an article where this kind of negative environment exists, for fear of becoming entangled in this whole dispute. I think it would be best for the moment if you forgot it, if not forgave it. Have some trust in the administration of Wikipedia. If he truly is disruptive, you need not be around to report it for him to be disciplined. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 17:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Peter, if nursed slights are decisive and create a negative environment, how do you think that contravening policy helps?
  • How many times should I forgive? We've already been through a dispute resolution at least a dozen,[124] culminating in the ArbCom case. The ArbCom case found several examples of ScienceApologist being uncivil towards me,[125]and failure to extend good faith,[126]. And when I point out that this has continued past the ArbCom decision, I am criticized for mentioning it!!!
  • With respect, ScienceApologist has either contravened policy (yet again), or he hasn't. I feel it is the duty of the administration to at least find out. --Iantresman 18:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • And what is the point of this fourth report? A sysop is already making a full investigation int your third report, as stated above. Why the need for another report? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • To show that it continues. Do you think that if ever I get arrested, I can tell the police that they don't have to worry about investigating this case, because there is someone looking into my previous three arrests? If the admin is going to include this case with the previous three, then no problem. --Iantresman 19:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately policy prevents us from taking a step back and disengaging, as silence signifies 'consent' towards ScienceApologists bold changes, and we certainly don't consent. Currently he is trying to delete the Electric Universe page, and merge the Plasma Cosmology page with one of its stubs. While I have less care for what happens to the Electric Universe page, I can not sit by silently and witness the destruction of the Plasma_cosmology article. We have gone way past the point of assuming good faith, etc, as SA has clearly demonstrated his ill intent. -Ionized 18:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Please take a moment to consider your attitude. It comes off as combative, ("I can not sit by and silently witness the destruction of the Plasma_cosmology article). Consider the fact that there are millions of editors on Wikipedia, and that one editor not contributing does not mean an article will be neglected or fall into POV. You may consider requesting a peer review as a more constructive way to get more eyes on the article and avoid POV. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 18:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note See my findings above. I regard this matter as now closed. Bucketsofg 00:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

NuclearUmpf[edit]

Zer0faults (talk · contribs), now editing as User:NuclearUmpf, is on probation. "He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring," per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults. He has been disrupting User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard by edit warring:

Reported by: Tom Harrison Talk 16:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

See also constant maintence tag reverts at Image:Al-douri12.jpg (after being repeatedly directed to respond at PUIdisputed) and Image:NPC-Paul-Thompson.jpg, which is just a direct request for a link to the release, never fufilled. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've warned him in good faith to try to avoid edit and revert warring, and asked him to simply provide a link to the image and the license for 'NPC-Paul-Thompson.jpg'. I'm hopeful Zer0 can avoid a block by focusing on content (the relevant licensing requirements), and avoiding non-disruptive conduct. Thanks all. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I've asked him nicely about GabrielF's page. I suspect the copyright problems are a misunderstanding. If the US government creates an image, it is PD, but if it uses an image from elsewhere, the image is still subject to its original copyright. It is entirely possible that the Defense Dept violated someone's copyright in using the image, but since I don't know the status of official Iraqi government docs (which I suspect this is), I can't say one way or the other. Thatcher131 17:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I was only aware of the 'Thompson' revert war, which is similarly a copyright issue. As you are, I'm similarly hopeful these disputes will be resolved amicably. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow still hawking my contrib, who would have though. Anyway if Wikipedia is gonig to allow these users to start tagging all my contributions and harassing me, they are all from the same noticeboard, then I will gladly edit wikipedia from now on anonymously. --NuclearZer0 18:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It was a civil message I left for you, one which you summarily deleted from your user page with the edit summary 'giggle narf point' (is that a 'Pinky and the Brain' reference?). Your degree of emotion, apparent desire to be disruptive and disregard for the community about this minor issue seems inappropriate to me. As far as 'hawking your contribs', no. If I had done so, surely I would have noticed you edit warring on three separate articles, not just the one I notified you of in good faith. Ominous threatening to 'go anon' is meaningless to me, given your history of less-than-cooperative conduct as Zer0. It's my understanding that this account is your last chance to edit under an open name (one easily corroborated with your ArbCom probation), so I wholeheartedly recommend you don't blow it on something as meaningless as this. Whatever your decision, I wish you well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Degree of emotion? I said I do not mind editing anonymously and you write a paragraph, wow just wow. Have a cup of tea. --NuclearZer0 19:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, don't mind if I do. I'd appreciate it if you restored my warning to your talk page, but in light of your disruptive behavior I don't expect you to do so, since you've once again wiped the entire topic from your user page. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
He can do what he wants to his own talk page. Thatcher131 19:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Not contested. I'm familiar with the rules. However a user like Zer0 - on ArbCom probation for tendentious editing - may want to intently focus on solving the dispute, rather than ignoring it by blanking and revert warring - don't you agree that would be a more productive path? What we are 'allowed' to do is not always what we 'should' do in the interests of collaboration. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Your degree of emotion considering the situation is a bit high, I am choosing to disengage from you as you are a bit more invested in this conversation for some odd reason then I am. I hope you find a better way to channel your feelings. Happy New Year. --NuclearZer0 19:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
'Parroting' other users as you do here is also rude. I'm glad, however, that you are choosing to let the issue go. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Nuclear Zero has just [127] posted a long treatise to Thatcher's talk page describing his role in organized efforts to form 'teams' to avoid 3RR while 'defending' POV - most specifically his having 'posed as neutral' as part of an organized team to defend his 'team's' version of edits. That's organized gaming of 3RR, revert and edit warring, improper use of image tags and uncivil conduct, all evident in a cursory review of Zer0's last 24 hours. What more egregious conduct is needed before this user (who is already on probation against tendentious editing) is finally perma'blocked? Good Lord. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the allegations involve a wide range of editors not previously covered in arbitration. If any action were to be taken, the other named editors would have to be able to speak for themselves. Nuclear also claims to have left the group, and Morton D denies there ever was a group. You'll have to open a new arbitration case if you want to try and address that statement. The only thing I see in the last 24 hours is revert warring over his own talk page (against a British Telecom IP address) and some misunderstandings about image policy. Thatcher131 03:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
No, the allegations involving others can be discarded. Nuclear's own admission regarding his OWN conduct is what I've mentioned. 'Some misunderstandings about image policy' is a less-than-neutral way to describe 3 reverts each on two images, wouldn't you admit? I don't need to open a new case to discuss Nuclear's own admission of his own disregard for his prior probation - that's silly. I have no interest in chasing this latest dust devil of his. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
On the subject of the images, I don't blame him for feeling that his uploads were being targeted by his usual opponents. He clearly has a misunderstanding about the role of the US govt in publishing the deck of cards, not understanding that publication does not affect the underlying copyright of the image. (Imagine if the Fed Gvt could render any copyright into public domain simply by republishing it--it would be the mother of all unconstitutional takings.) I asked him to find some neutral copyright experts to advise him and as far as I know the issue with the images is over.
On the subject of his supposed disclosure, He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring. It may be a technical point, but off-wiki coordination and gaming the system are not listed here as a prohibited activity. More generally, if edits by this "group" did not raise suspicions at the time, then they weren't disruptive, and there is no basis to hold Nuclear singularly responsible for them. (I don't see how you can dismiss the other members of the alleged group in order to hold Nuclear uniquely responsible.) He also says he is no longer part of the group (which Morton denies exists), so if we are going to accept Nuclear's word that a group exists, we have to accept his word that he left. His probation is meant to prevent continued or future disruptive editing, not punish past acts, about which you haven't been specific in any case. Thatcher131 04:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It hasn't prevented disruptive editing.
Once again, I'm ignoring the 'foil' of whether Nuclear's cabal claims (links provided) are true and focusing on what he has said about his own conduct... 'posing as neutral' in order to game WP. His revert warring on the images (links provided) is just part of a larger picture - continued disruptive editing. Claiming a cabal exists, and accusing other users is also certainly disruptive (again, whether or not such a group exists or not is irrelevant - the claim is disruptive in and of itself) as is his admission of his own intent and conduct (link provided as above). Specific links have been provided. The acts in question (multiple revert wars, accusing others of cabal, intentionally gaming WP, improper use of image tags, etc.) all took place recently, well AFTER his probation, and are of course relevant... this is not 'punishing past acts', it's addressing recent acts in violation of probation. In any case (thankfully), it's ArbCom's decision, not yours. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Those reverts are not on his own page, but on GabrielF's page. Or am I misunderstanding you? Tom Harrison Talk 03:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I forgot about the GabrielF page. The problem is, probation is not meant to short circuit all other forms of dispute resolution, and it is not a license to keep reverting him until you can report it as a violation. No one tried to talk to him about the inclusion of the MfD, just reverted back and reported here. I feel confident you will not find a single arbitrator who feels probation should be treated this way, and I invite you to ask around. (I will gladly admit my error if I am proven wrong.) After I talked to him, he stopped. (Ultimately, GabrielF has control over his page, and if he wants the MfD listed or not listed, or wants to ban Nuclear—or anyone else—from posting, that should be respected.)
In the last week there have been two edit wars on his talk page, the nomination of one of his subages for MfD, listing two of his recent image uploads for deletion, and a 3RR block for him and Hipocrite. I don't know exactly what is going on, but I'm not surprised he feels ganged up on. Thatcher131 04:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
In the words of a wise man, "don't start nothin', won't be nothin'." Nuclear's a big boy and we are each responsible for our own conduct. He's been through an ArbCom process, is on probation and is being held to an appropriately higher set of standards. Now, on his second screenname, he hasn't visibly made an effort to keep above the fray - he's continued to be at the center of acrimonious debate after acrimonious debate. All users should be as fortunate as Zer0 to have your unflinching, apparently unconditional support. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Nuclear's probation allows him to be banned from articles he disrupts. That means, in the present instant, GabrielF's noticeboard and the two images under consideration for deletion. The disruption, if such it was, stopped after I asked nicely, and I will not take punitive action at this time. If we take his admission at face value, he could be banned for disruptive editing of other articles. Which articles? You haven't said. All 9/11 conspiracy articles? Or would you just like him generally banned? There is no basis for that in the previous case. I maintain that there is not a single arbitrator who would enforce his current probation in the current circumstances, against either the recent edit warring (in which no attempt at dispute resolution was made before filing three near-simultaneous complaints here) or with respect to his admission. Ask them. If you can find even one to disagree with me, I will publically acknowledge my error and will recuse myself from any further dealings with NuclearUmpf and the surrounding cast of characters. In fact, I may leave arbitration enforcement entirely, my errors in judgement having been proved. Go ahead. Thatcher131 05:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thatcher131, tell me more about this 'cast of characters.' If you treat people like they are in a conspiracy against you, they will act like they are. If you believe NuclearUmpf is a brave whistle-blower being persecuted by some shadowy group, maybe you should recuse yourself.Tom Harrison Talk 12:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Every good drama needs a cast of characters, both black hats and white hats. I don't have any particular opinion on which side wears which color hat, I'm just tired of the whole thing. In the present case I do not believe probation was meant to be enforced in the way you want. I would like to note that my "recusal" would not have much effect, since the result (no action from me) would be the same and my opinions are certainly not binding on any other admins who look into the situation. Thatcher131 13:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's see, I'm accused of being in secret email contact with a group of people, as acting as their "talk page provacateur," yet my only edits to 9/11 conspiracy articles for literally months has been to step on NU's new adopted savior of all that is nonsense, but you can't tell who the good guys and who the bad guys are? Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Call it deliberate avoidance of the issue. I'm sure that if I looked thoroughly into the content of the edits I would have many strong opinions about edits and editors. (And I did recommend leaving the new timeline out, if you recall.) I'm trying to deal impartially with accusations of disruptive editing behavior. I am still processing Nuclear's "admission" and it has not influced my opinion on this enforcement request in either direction. I simply don't think that probation was meant to be enforced in the manner and for the reasons for which enforcement was requested (so many posts ago). I could be wrong. I asked for clarification once before and was ignored, I plan to ask again. Thatcher131 13:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
While I would be delighted if you would recuse yourself from dealings with this 'cast of characters', I made very clear that I wouldn't 'like' him banned at all - and I've been clear about that from the outset. (see above in this very section). I made a concerted effort to resolve this with Zer0 by posting on the pages in question, and his talk page, requesting he provide proof of the license status, rather than delete the requests and revert warring the associated tags. When I asked Zer0 as you did, he wiped my request. And then you flatly stated that he's allowed to do so, rather than doing the right thing - which would have been to neutrally encourage him to engage in dialogue with me or others to resolve the dispute. After you then asked him yourself to address the specific image status, it would appear he may have listened to you, and not to me, as he didn't wipe your request from his talk page as he did mine. Attempts at dispute resolution were made - and Zer0 wiped them out with snarky 'giggle' edit comments. I continue to be nonplussed by your representation of these events as so one-sided - you appear to discount those bringing these valid instances in favor of Zer0, so your recusal may indeed be called for. To me, as I've stated before the issue is the 'disruptive nature of his conduct', and I welcome whatever remedy will either address those instances of disruptive conduct (which have been listed here) effectively, or end them altogether. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
He's allowed to remove messages from his own talk page. It's not particularly friendly and it's discouraged, but it is allowed, and I don't know any admin who will block over it (there have been numerous dicussions around this issue on the admin noticeboards involving many different admins and many different editors). Removing good faith notices and refusing to discuss things with certain editors is not in the spirit of wikipedia (as well as being somewhat, um, childish), but I doubt that edit warring over the notices is likely to improve his outlook. Edit warring on the image pages themselves is out of bounds, but that's resolved now and not an ongoing problem. Pages bans per the probation are intended to prevent further disruption to allow other editors to get on with editing; I don't see that banning him from editing those images would have any purpose now, as long as he allows the fair use evaluation process to proceed. What else would you like done? You say you don't want him banned, but above you cite his admissions as grounds for a permablock. Thatcher131 05:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I never edit warred over a single notice Zer0 deleted from his user page... as doing so would be lowering myself to that same, childish level.
I certainly hope his revert warring over image tags, etc. won't be an ongoing problem - but I only have your promises to that effect and we are each alone responsible for our conduct. No one can guarantee the actions of another, and Zer0 himself has not made a commitment to try once again to avoid edit warring - in fact, he's instead threatened to use proxies to avoid accountability - more questionable and non-collaborative conduct that violates the spirit (if not the letter) of his probation. So I remain less confident than you may be that his conduct is 'resolved and not an ongoing problem'.
Hmmm, since it was only after Zer0 admitted misrepresenting himself and gaming AfD and 3RR in such an egregious and mean-spirited way (and accusing others of cabalistic behavior) that I made that permabanning comment, perhaps the most logical and WP-protecting response would be to block him from participation in AfD (in which I myself have rarely participated)? Can he temporarily be blocked for even 1RR, as others have been? Would that be appropriate, given his violations of probation and given your viewpoint and desire to support his 'rehabilitation'? In any case, bedtime for Ryan. Goodnight! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I cant be part fo a cabal and not part of one because it doesnt exist. You cannot take the parts you like out of a testimony as true then dismiss the rest as false. You say you have no axe to grind but I find it odd we run into eachother again when you have no interest at all in conspiracy articles, yet had great interest in me when you thought I was rex and about 5 people and 3 RFCU's later, you have been proven wrong. The fact that you would now attempt to negate all the information provided and call me a liar, then accept only information that would serve to hurt me, is quite perplexing indeed. I never accused Ryan of being part of a cabal btw because they never were, their issue with me dates way back when I defended Rex and as Thatcher has seen their accusations continued for quite some time and many many RFCU's later. I again ask Ryan to stop checking my contribs. Thanks. Also I choose to ignore Ryan because I left the debate alone, we were discussing on the image, why discuss there and on my talk page? This is really silly if its over a template being removed, the fact I appeared on the image page shows I read it. The fact that I removed it, for what you assume was negative reasons, means I read it. --NuclearZer0 14:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Also how can I game the system if it requires this cabal to exist for it to happen. So if you want to say no cabal exists, then you are saying I did not game the system, you cant have it both ways. --NuclearZer0 14:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
If you were telling the truth in your 'admission' above, your conduct has been egregious and disruptive. If you were lying, than lying like that and accusing others is egregious and disruptive. Do you understand this? Frankly, I think your cabal claims are but a smokescreen to bring others into your descent. In any case, you're being disruptive. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
So if I was lying then it didnt really happen and its not really disruptive since nothing got disrupted. You accusing me of being a sock on this very page wasn't dispruptive was it? Do you support a ban for yourself for making accusations? I am sure you do not so making an accusation isnt disruptive. If I was telling the truth then you should file an Arbcom on everyone involved as its quite detrimental. Then you get to gather information on everyone involved to prove its true to ArbCom =). Do not worry I will help you. --NuclearZer0 14:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Your illogical and disruptive swipes (whether against an imaginary cabal, or me) are becoming more and more foolish all the time. Zer0, you should just leave it be, stop accusing others of organized disruption of Wikipedia, and stop doing so yourself. You won't cast any hooks into me, as I stand by my actions. You, apparently, do not. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I wouldn't assume that Nuclear is necessarily wrong about the "most wanted" image. The Department of Defense has apparently announced that the image is public domain,[128], and several companies have produced reproductions of the image without obstacle. Given that the US was the occupational government of Iraq at the time, the issue of whether the US had the right to release that image into the public domain is an interesting one. (And if they don't, we may need to start removing links to the Iraqi most wanted page as a possible copyright infringement). I'm looking forward to seeing how it plays out on the possibly unfree images page. TheronJ 04:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Me too - in fact I had no idea that that other dispute was taking place. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

Enough already. I have blocked NuclearUmpf for 48 hours for either falsely accusing editors with whom he is in a dispute of socking and conspiracy, or for participating in an obnoxious conspiracy, and for being just generally and deliberately obtuse and unrepentant when confronted with it. Good night all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:KyndFellow[edit]

KyndFellow (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction for aggressive editing of the article Sex tourism. The final decision in their case is here: WP:AER#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FSex_tourism.

The following diffs show the offending behavior
KyndFellow has begun recruiting meatpuppets to proxy edit Sex tourism, from which he is banned indefinitely.
Relevant Remedies: KyndFellow banned.
Relevant enforcement: Enforcement by block, Puppet.
Summation

Please note that User:Devalover has not taken the bait on this one, nor is there any evidence he is likely to. It might be helpful to inform Devalover about the risks of participating in meatpuppetry, but I do not wish to discourage him from editing Sex tourism.

Reported by: edgarde 21:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Tricky. Does the article ban block content or just behavior? Certainly if Devalover resumed the edit war over the linkspam, it would be a blockable offense. But if KF makes other suggestions and Devalover implements them in a non-disruptive manner, with respect for cooperation, consensus, and other good things, should that be an offense? I'm not sure. I've asked for further clarification. Thatcher131 04:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I would argue this is the edit war. This is not a new discussion about how to improve the article. The edits User:KyndFellow is requesting are similar to those over which he has edit-warred in the past (c.f. /Evidence#POV edits by Mr. Knodel). Without arguing whether or not there is an offence now, I would like it to be addressed before it becomes an offence that would involve sanctions toward Devalover, who probably isn't aware of the full extent of the problem.
Prior to KyndFellow's communication to Devalover, I asked about this in Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism. It seemed obvious that this would become a problem. I'm not asking for a ban or any particular penalty. A warning would be sufficient at this time.
KyndFellow's behavior suggests he is highly motivated to continue editing the article by whatever means is available to him. Again, his edits are unverfied, self-serving, POV; his methods have been disruptive. / edgarde 05:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me add, Kyndfellow does have a history of canvassing other users with the intention of supporting his linkspam. [130] [131] [132] [133] I'm reasonably confident that is where this is ultimately going. / edgarde 05:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
At the very least, Devalover has to take responsibility for any edit he makes, and if they are disruptive, he falls under remedy 2. Given his user page, I expect he will avoid this trap. Still, a kind word can't hurt. Thatcher131 05:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
A kind word from me will fall on deaf ears because Kyndfellow regards this as a personal dispute between him and me. / edgarde 05:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I meant a kind word to Devalover (which I have given). Also, if the arbitration committee clarifies that any collaboration is prohibited, I will revise the info box on the talk page. Thatcher131 05:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay I see the kind word has been added to Devalover's Talk page. This is all I really wanted. Thank you much for this! :) / edgarde 05:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
As a long time advocate of KyndFellow, I would like to state that KyndFellow had cooperated with Devalover already in the past. Devalover has, in my impression, established himself as an independant editor and is (by his own account) an experienced editor (he claims he normally edits under a different account), so I don't see any problem in KyndFellow's wish to cooperate with Devalover. The relationship between KyndFellow and Devalover should not be any different, and Devalover recused himself from participating in the recent arbitration, and that decision was not questioned; so if Devalover has so far not been considered a meat-puppet, he should not be considered a meat-puppet now either... I would consider it inconsistant and possibly paranoid. So, to conclude, if Devalover wants to take advice from KyndFellow, he ought to be free to do so.
Essentially, I think we all have the same view on all of this, and that we do not dispute the ruling of the arbcom. But because I am an advocate, I feel obliged to say something on behalf of my advocee... / Fred-Chess 11:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)