Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive31

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

Edit Warring at Ulster Special Constabulary[edit]

User:BigDunc is edit warring at Ulster Special Constabulary by continually removing an image which he claims has a "copyvio". The non-free use rationale is correct for the article and he has been warned not to delete it. He is also ignoring the 1RR on this article and the fact that it is a contentious subject. The article history is here. As the image is a central, integral and valuable part of this article I feel he could easily have sorted out any issues with the image itself rather than edit-warring for its removal. Thunderer (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I remove a copyvio from the article and so did User:David Underdown we both explained that it was a violation yet Thunderer continued to insert the image and then went to the image page in an attempt to give a fair use rational as he knew he was in the wrong. BigDuncTalk 15:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The removal is correct. The image serves no indespensable purpose helping to understand the article. For understanding the role of that person in the formation of the Constabulary, it is not important to see what he looked like. Fut.Perf. 15:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The use of the image is for educational and non-profit purposes. It is not a copyright violation. Thunderer (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
But it fails our internal non-free content criteria, in particular #8. Fut.Perf. 15:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:RAT clearly states # Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article. . The inclusion of Lord Brookeborough as one of the founders of the Ulster Special Constabulary is pertinent - he is discussed prominently in the article.Thunderer (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
First, the text at WP:RAT is not policy, it's just an example of a rationale that might work for some images, where those statements actually apply. Here, they don't. The photograph is quite obviously not the object of discussion in the article. The person is, the image is not. The photograph is not historically significant at all, certainly not for any relation to the Ulster Constabulary. Fut.Perf. 15:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
(EC) I agree that the image does not meet fair use criteria, and appears to be purely decorative in this article. Please remember that Wikipedia intentionally has chosen fair use standards that exceed copyright law. Finally, it appears that you have edit warred over this issue. I only came here because I was considering enforcing a block based on a report from User:3RRBot. Please desist. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help admins - now I know why I am leaving wikipedia. Thunderer (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Coming late to the party, I agree that image is decorative and your behavior in handling it is subpar. Edit summaries are not a replacement for discussion and there needs to be a compelling reason to keep a non-free image in an article. MBisanz talk 04:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong[edit]

The Falun Gong articles were put on probation some time ago. At the moment there is what I understand to be violation of BLP policies on the Li Hongzhi page. user:Zahd seeks to add material that he considers "very damaging," "strange, interestingly outlandish", etc., and which he believes makes the subject "look foolish" -- these also appear to be the reasons for advocating inclusion of the disputed material. He has also made disparaging remarks about the subject of the article, though I'm unsure of how severe such remarks need to be before they are relevant. The dispute is about this line from BLP: "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." -- I mentioned to Zahd that the reasons he states for inclusion of the material are not ones supported by wikipedia, and that notability needs to be established for inclusion. He responded in contradiction of this policy, saying "The issue isn't that we must deal exclusively with what concepts make him famous or notable..." -- Zahd has made no response to repeated citations of BLP, and made no attempt to deal with the policy issue of the material. Instead he has merely accused me of censorship, of having an agenda, etc., and reverted repeatedly. I remembered the pages are on probation, so I'm leaving a note here. Full discussion: Talk:Li_Hongzhi#TIME_Asia_quotes. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 23:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree that the {{quotefarm}} was pointless, but then so was a really long and totally pointless quote from Li himself that I've just removed. The article does have genuine hagiographic tendencies: these need to be addressed, particularly in the "academic perspectives" section. I'm quite sure this is not the whole story. Bottom line, though - nothing actionable here yet. Moreschi (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved[edit]

Giano II[edit]

Notification: NPA block for cross-wiki abuse[edit]

This is a notification that I've gone a bit beyond our normal principle of sanctioning only on-site behaviour, by handing out a long NPA block for racist personal attacks made on a different wikipedia. This is about Raso mk (talk · contribs), who was repeatedly sanctioned for abuse under WP:ARBMAC earlier. The most recent attacks were made on his home mk-wiki here, they are directed against a named en-wiki contributor, in a thread titled "en-wiki", and they contain racist nationalist abuse coupled with personal insults about the victim's looks. I've had the text translated, it's pretty bad. Since this is a cross-wiki conflict situation where the same people have consistently been acting out the same set of disputes under the same identities across several projects, and the attack is clearly of a kind designed to make good-faith collaboration with the targeted person impossible on this wiki too, I don't see any sense in treating the different wikis as different worlds here in such a way that mk-wiki could act as a safe haven for this sort of unacceptable behaviour. I've blocked the main culprit, User:Raso mk, for six months, given the history of earlier en-wiki infractions, and the second guy, MacedonianBoy (talk · contribs) for two weeks (for allowing this to happen on his talk page, applauding Raso's abuse, and edging him on.)

In case somebody asks, yes, the cross-wiki identity of the editors across the different wikis is known beyond any doubt. Fut.Perf. 07:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been reviewing Raso mk's (rather incoherent) unblock request. As I've already mentioned on his talk page, I think this block is questionable and should be undone. I have no reason to doubt that what Fut.Perf. says is factually true. But WP:BP states that blocking is intended to prevent damage to Wikipedia, which we have traditionally understood to mean this Wikipedia. Because nothing indicates that Raso mk was disrupting this Wikipedia at the time of his block, the block appears to be ill-founded. (Of course, I don't intend to excuse Raso mk's misbehaviour, if any, by this.)
If the block is not undone, I ask that the objectionable contributions please be reproduced and translated here.  Sandstein  23:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I foresaw these objections, that's why I made the notification here, but personally I stand by this block decision. This is, in fact, a block designed to prevent disruption on this Wikipedia, and as such conformant to our policies. The disruption lies in the fact that Raso with his off-site attacks has poisoned the well regarding collegial cooperation with the attacked contributors here. We cannot demand of the victims (User:TodorBozhinov and User:Laveol) to keep cooperating with this person on this wikipedia in light of these continued insults as if nothing had happened. We can also not demand of them that they should pretend the insults didn't happen or weren't relevant to them, merely because they formally happened in some other place. It's been my position for a long time that wherever Wikipedians meet and interact in their roles as wikipedians, with a focus on their activities and conflicts on Wikipedia, be it on other wikis, on IRC, in e-mail, or in face-to-face communication, whatever they say is relevant for their standing here and should be taken into account for disciplinary purposes just as if it was actually posted here. If there exists a policy against this, that policy is counterproductive and needs to be swept aside.
The requested translation (given to me by the attacked user in e-mail) is as follows: "I see you're having troubles with the ugly face [link to target's en-wiki user page] from the English Wikipedia! You'd better stand aside as he obviously has a problem with himself. And it's not his fault, it's the Tatar syndrome they [the Bulgarians] have. It's the same case with the "vegetable" [hard to translate, it's a colloquial word from the root for green + the derogative suffix -ash; directed at Laveol I guess]. It is incomprehensible that in the 21st century one could live and have a brain like in the Middle Ages. Communism frustrated them and they're still suffering the consequences of the culture shock they lived through in the 90s. Their ancestors and their current southern neighbours said it well: kenef raya [roughly "shitty lower class"]. What a Porca Misèria."
Fut.Perf. 00:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe the relevant prior case would be Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch#Conduct_outside_Wikipedia:
A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails or commenting on Wikipedia and its users in other forums.
I can see how a legal threat or outing on another site would be blockable, but from the translation provided, I do not think it rises to something blockable, particularly since it occurred on another wiki. Different wikis have different standards of conduct, just like IRC/WR/Skype has different standards of conduct. Also, I question the block as the translation of the material that is being used to support it, comes from the person requesting the block. I would expect a translation from a less-involved party if the material is the primary basis for the block. And the comment was made 5 days before the block was placed. Generally blocks are placed to prevent imminent harm. I do not see how incivility/personal attacks that stopped five days ago rise to the level of an block on another Wiki. I would support an unblock here, with the understanding that at the English Wikipedia, all users must abide by NPA and CIV. MBisanz talk 03:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
By quoting this, are you claiming the Macedonian Wikipedia is not a Wikipedia? I'll put it plain and simple: I don't edit the Macedonian Wikipedia, and the comments made there do not relate to my activity over on the Macedonian Wikipedia, but to my activity right here, on the English Wikipedia. They were posted on the Macedonian Wikipedia with the direct intention to get away with it. However, they are directed at an English Wikipedia contributor and have nothing to do with the Macedonian Wikipedia. This is an attempt at Wikipedia:Gaming the system, and we should be wary of Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. We must not forget about the spirit of the policies when applying them.
As for my translation, I stand by it and I did my best to translate the text as well as possible. I wouldn't mind if someone unrelated to these events produces another translation so that it can be verified that mine was correct. The text is still available so you're welcome. TodorBozhinov 14:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a lot of history here. See this, this, this, also see both Raso mk's and MacedonianBoy's block log. This is textbook WP:HARASS and Wikipedia:NPA#Off-wiki_attacks. Also just some weeks ago User:Crossthets was indefbanned for less than this and there was no such fuss...--Avg (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was proper, Crossthets committed harassment and personal attacks at the English Wikipedia and was banned from the English Wikipedia. If Raso mk's makes personal attacks at the English Wikipedia he will be handled according to the English Wikipedia's policies, if he makes them elsewhere, he will be handled by the policies of the other forum in which he made the attacks. MBisanz talk 05:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, FP, I don't think that's a good block. Blocking an editor here for misbehaving on another wiki is stepping squarely on a line I am fairly sure we don't want to cross. Except in cases of truly egregious behavior, we don't act on-wiki to things happening elsewhere; there is no damage to be prevented here. There's probably a good cause to bring this to the attention of the other wiki, however, or even perhaps at meta if the behavior is so bad it might justify a global block; but an unilateral blocking here is... icky. — Coren (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
"There is no damage to be prevented here"? Well, we evidently disagree over what the damage is that a preventative NPA block is meant to prevent. With NPA cases that are not just one-off attacks in the heat of anger on a personal level, but indicators of an entrenched stance of politically motivated ethnic hatred, what must be prevented is not, or not only, the danger that the victims might have to hear repetitions of the same kinds of insults uttered again. What needs to be prevented is them having to interact with the ethnic haters at all. If somebody has been persistently spreading racist hate speech, we don't want them to just shut up, we want them out, banished to a place where their victims no longer have to deal with them. We cannot demand of our good-faith contributors that they should continue interacting with these people and treating them as fellow Wikipedians, to be taken seriously and to be negotiated with. The very idea of having such people continuing to show their faces here would be a continuous source of very concrete damage, as it would dampen the spirit of good-will and cooperation among the other contributors.
I see I'm probably in a minority position here, so if others think there is a consensus against me, do what you must, but I'll strongly maintain my opinion about this issue. Fut.Perf. 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't dispute the poisonous result of repeated personal attacks; someone who takes aggressive behavior elsewhere directed at our editors is a Bad Thing indeed. Now, if there was discussion of banning the editor as an egregious aggressor, then that outside behavior would rightly be used as evidence of bad faith and continuing misbehavior. The end result might be a ban, but then it would be because the editor, as a whole, was considered hopelessly disruptive and not because of an overt act on some other wiki. It might seem to be a fine line of distinction, but it is one I really feel we should not cross: enwp is the 800 pound gorilla; if we start enforcing our rules for behavior over behavior on other wikis, we place ourselves on shaky ethical ground. — Coren (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why we should be concerned about "enforcing our rules on other wikis". Do you mean "ethical" problem because it would be unfair over the mk-wiki community? But it's not as if we are trying to govern over them. I'm not proposing that we should tell the mk-wiki admins what to do about him there. I don't care if they block him over there (I doubt if they would, even if somebody raised the issue there; there seems generally to be a consensus at mk-wiki that it's quite okay to keep up a healthy national fighting spirit against the neighbours.) But if they are causing problems that affect us here, why shouldn't we do our bit in protecting our project from the effects? Fut.Perf. 19:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

To MBisanz: (1) the translation seems correct. I can read Macedonian just enough (with a help of an online dictionary) that I can verify it says what the translation says it says. If some nuance should not be rendered quite precisely, there are enough Macedonian users here who can correct it. Raso has not (as far as I can comprehend his unblock request babble) actually claimed the charge is wrong. (2) The insults have not "stopped" ("five days ago"), they are part of a campaign that has gone on for close to a year, including e-mails, postings here, postings there and all sorts of other things. (3) As for the "off-wiki" nature of the behaviour: I simply don't buy it. When we deal with personal attacks as "disruptive", it is never the attack in and of itself that is disruptive. It is the social effects caused by attacks that are disruptive. The attack was spoken over there and five days ago; its social effects are right here and now. These effects – the degrading of a collegial cooperation atmosphere - are tangible, very real, very present, very directly affect this project, and were very much calculated and intended as such. – You quoted the Arbcom there. Honestly, I don't give a damn what Arbcom thinks about this. I'm perfectly prepared to IAR the Arbcom here. Fut.Perf. 09:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest moving this thread to WP:AN then, the Arbitration in the page title is a bit confusing to the topic being discussed. MBisanz talk 09:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This looks like the right page for the thread, although I share misgivings about the block. As someone who is currently sysopped on three WMF projects I deal with cross wiki grudges from time to time. These things tend to get handled on an ad hoc basis. Allow me to articulate a few guideposts.

  • Clean slate - Some Wikimedians extend a clean slate to users at each project, disregarding all behavior that didn't occur at that project. This has the advantage of giving editors who ran into trouble on one site the ability to start over and become valued contributors. Its disadvantage is vulnerability to deliberate gaming by individuals who exploit good faith to dodge blocks.
  • Shorter leash - As an alternative to the 'clean slate' approach, this welcomes editors who've had rocky histories on other projects so long as the problematic behavior doesn't recur. If the problem reappears at the new project, the editor's prior conduct and block record at a sister project influences the administrative response. So an editor who was sitebanned for vandalism at one project may edit another so long as he or she doesn't vandalize. If they do vandalize, warnings and blocks would escalate at an accelerated rate. I prefer this approach to the clean slate.
  • Grudges - Cross-wiki hounding is a matter of particular concern. Suppose Editor A has been blocked three times for personal attacks against Editor B at one project, and A goes to a second project to vandalize B's user page. That, in my view, is more serious than random vandalism because it creates and sustains a hostile environment for a particular contributor. Not all Wikimedians agree with that analysis, though.
  • Porting - Where is the problem moving? Hypothetically, if Editor C has been blocked for two weeks for edit warring at Commons and starts edit warring at Wikinews, I may block C at Wikinews but I wouldn't automatically reblock them at Commons. As long as C doesn't resume edit warring at Commons they're welcome to contribute there. If edit warring does resume at Commons, though, it might be reasonable to weigh the recent problem at Wikinews--especially if the problem bears a direct relation (such as edit warring over an image that illustrates the Wikinews article).

So although this list has no formal status at all, it might be a better idea to unblock with a caution. That particular insult isn't at the level of threats or coercion which would normally merit separate remedy at this project. If Raso mk ports that behavior back to this site he'd face arbitration discretionary remedies. And the acting administrator might exercise discretion based upon cross-wiki pattern behavior. Hope that rationale makes sense to fellow editors; few guidelines exist in this realm. DurovaCharge! 20:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the "clean slate" approach between pairs of projects such as enwiki vs commons, the point being that these projects typically involve different types of activities, people deal with different issues in each, so if two users meet again on commons after having had a conflict on enwiki, there's at least a chance they'll interact in different roles and on the basis of a different set of parameters. Not so here – the people involved are enacting a single set of disputes, all of the same nature and along the same national frontlines, across all the wikis in question. In fact, the recent attack on mk-wiki had nothing to do with mk-wiki at all, it was Raso-the-enwiki-editor speaking with MacedonianBoy-the-enwiki-editor about TodorBozhinov-the-enwiki-editor. "Clean slate" makes no sense at all there. Fut.Perf. 21:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Both you and I are 'shorter leash' proponents. Where we differ is porting. DurovaCharge! 22:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but I don't see there's anything to "port" here, for the real focus of the issue has never moved from one project to the other at all in this case. Also, your hypothetical example, of edit-warring, is really not comparable. Ethnic hate speech poisons the atmosphere between editors and groups of editors, as human beings, in a far more lasting manner than edit-warring. If I have edit-warred with somebody on project A, that doesn't necessarily stop me from cooperating with them on project B, if the same dispute doesn't also arise there. But if I know that person thinks I and my whole nation are scum, there's simply no way I can move on and continue working with them on a different project (discussing articles about that very ethnic group!) as if nothing had happened. Fut.Perf. 22:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The rationale is the moment he carries that behavior back here to this project, then it becomes blockable here. In other words, we wait for him to repeat the behavior on this project. And the administrative response may consider the cross-project pattern when and if it ports back to this site. Makes sense? DurovaCharge! 22:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid not. It doesn't answer my point. The damage is being done here and now, and we must prevent it from being continued here and now. (The damage being, as I said, his mere presence, not necessarily any further insults.) Fut.Perf. 01:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Their behaviour was here, on this project, they don't need to carry it back anywhere. I'm not an MK wiki editor and I have no intention to become one. The comments were posted on the MK wiki for one single reason, which I'm repeating once again: to get away with it; they have no effect on the MK wiki, they are aimed at an English Wikipedia contributor and affect the English Wikipedia only. And yes, to confirm what Future said, I won't be able to co-operate with these people on the English Wikipedia anymore. I don't want them around and I don't see why anybody would. TodorBozhinov 13:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not defending Rašo's insults, Bozhinov has made it very clear that he "knows" that Macedonian (Rašo's language) is a dialect of Bulgarian (Bozhinov's language) and that Macedonians (Rašo's people) are Bulgarians (Bozhinov's people). This is all on en-wiki. So why should Rašo, or anyone else, be expected to cooperate, or dare I ask, be civil to someone who makes such statements? Poisoning the well only works if the well initially contains clean water. Here, it never did. BalkanFever 06:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nah, divergent opinions about the Macedonian language and nationality are just that: opinions. Which Todor is entirely entitled to. Fut.Perf. 07:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Opinions on the psychological state of Bulgarians? BalkanFever 08:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that itself a sanctionable ethnic attack? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Please spare me the misquotations and qualifications, Fever, your revelations about the "psychological state of Bulgarians" are extremely inappropriate right here. Don't let me remind you you were also involved in the abuse we're discussing here and asking you friends to continue insulting me by e-mail and not on talk wasn't exactly the one right thing to do. You deserve a thanks for not joining in though, I give you that. TodorBozhinov 21:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Grandmaster[edit]

Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Grandmaster is placed under supervision under AA2, the amended remedies gives the administrators the right to impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Grandmaster was involved both in AA1 and AA2 and was already topic banned. Grandmaster has a history of distorting sources. He just did it again by totally ignoring thousands of words of discussion. Here 32 works have been provided to support that the accurate term was Tatar or Tartar. He reverted and claimed on the summary: Please do not distort the source while he was the one who distort the source.

The source Grandmaster added and even quoted it doesn't supports his edit. The initial version was between the Armenians and Caucasian Tartars (modern Azerbaijanis) throughout the Caucasus in 1905—1907. Not only does the initial version which was tempered by both Dacy69 and Grandmaster accurate, but it even clarified Tatars relation with modern Azerbaijanis and devoid of any different interpretation. Whats even more insulting is that the source he added basically says the same thing. Grandmasters edit amounts to replacing Dutch to German and then on parenthesis claiming they were refereed to as Dutch. I don't have the energy to fight on such minor things which should not cause any trouble for any reasonable editor, so what I expect is that an administrator explain Grandmaster once and for all why Romans are not called Italians, Dutch are not called Germans etc. It's so obvious that I can not suppose anymore that he does not know what he is doing. Several other users and I have attempted to explain this to him for months, in return we were always ignored. VartanM (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster's misuses and distortions of the word Azerbaijani are not "minor things" because they are part of a larger campaign of POV warring that he and others are engaged it. That "Romans are not called Italians" example is worth exploring more to illustrate the reasons behind that POV warring. During the 1930s, the Mussolini regime would often produce propaganda equating being a true Italian with being a "Roman" of the "Roman Empire" in order to encourage or manipulate the Italian population into behaving in a particular way and to justify that behaviour to both themselves and the world. The regime of modern-day Azerbaijan is misusing the word "Azerbaijani" in a similar way - to invent or distort history and ethnicity for its own ends. Wikipedia should not be hijacked into propagating those inventions and distortions. Meowy 17:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I also think it isn't minor, Parishan has been extensively involved in this too. Meowy you'd be delighted (I'm being sarcastic) you have have not seen this, when Parishan attempted (and is still attempting) to introduce the Russian (then Soviet) school of thought, where to lay claim on Ottomans (and then Turkey) the Russians attempted to associate the Turks of Anatolia to 'Azerbaijani Turks' (a term they coined). He actually revert warred over this. Apparently in Anatolia the lingua franca was not Turkish but Azeri :) Note that Parishan's similar disruptions were partially documented in AA2 and ignored. After several instances of incivility, edit warring and POV pushing and formal warning, he still isn't restricted. - Fedayee (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm not under any supervision. The parole I (along with other parties to the first AA case) was placed on more than 1 year ago expired. Despite that I agreed to voluntarily abide by 1RR rule and never ever violated it. So I don't understand, which rule I did violate? Did I make more than 1 rv? No. Did I fix the inaccuracy in the article? Yes, I did. The info that I added is supported by sources and is factually accurate. Azerbaijanis were called Tatars in the Russian empire, same as all other Turkic people, since Russian at the time did not make much distinction among them. So what's the problem? This is not a place to discuss content disputes, if you happen to disagree with other editors, seek dispute resolution, and don't ask the admins to ban your opponents to eliminate the opposition. It does not work that way. Also, I would like to ask the admins to put an end to constant personal attacks on me by Meowy. I'm really tired of constant bad faith assumptions and incivility by this user. This is the latest example, he says on talk of Shusha: I question Grandmaster's moral suitability to be editing articles [39] This is the final version of his comment: [40], he removed some of his aggressive rhetoric, but it is still incivil and a personal attack. Grandmaster (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Grandmaster is not under those specific restrictions anymore. And yes, this is not the proper forum to discuss the misuse of the word "Azerbaijani" problem (though having Grandmaster point that out is rather like the kettle calling the pot black, because that editor has often placed spurious or off-topic complaints into this noticeboard). It is a content dispute, but one which affects dozens of articles, not just one or two, and concerns the meaning and use of a specific word. So using an article's talk page to confront the problem is not the longterm answer. Could an administrator suggest a more appropriate forum? Meowy 21:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I entirely agree with the comment made by Meowy which Grandmaster is quoting and I hope an administrator for once will take the time to read the comment above and decide whatever or not Grandmaster is being honest.
Grandmaster had no problem with the wording before April 24, 2007 before he decided to changed it. The slow revert war followed even with the Arbcom restrictions in place, and finally it was discussed that just as the title of the article the info in it was also accurate and reflected the title. The article was first named Armenian-Tatar, then was renamed without justification then renamed back to it's original name after it was shown that was what it was called by sources of the time and most of the modern ones. Parishan came out of nowhere and renamed it again, claiming there was no consensus etc...
Grandmaster's change from Tatar to Azerbeijani is OR, while he is partly right that they are mostly the same people, it was already provided and sourced that most nomadic people in the region (not only Turkic speaking) were tagged with the Turkic speaking people and called Tatar. And by changing Tatar to Azerbeijani Grandmaster is deliberately attempting to mislead those who read the article.
If the evidence of dishonesty isn't clear here, I invite administrators to check the edit summary he left when he asked me to stop distorting the source, while he was the one doing just that[41].
Lastly I would like you to note the sorry stub state the article was put by Grandmaster, thats despite the 30+ sources available in the talkpage. He has effectively stalled the progress of this article, just so he can push a certain POV. --VartanM (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Basically there's a group of users, who push the same Armenian POV that Azerbaijani people did not exist before 1930s. They try to push it here too, despite not being supported by a single reliable source. Those 30 sources VartanM refers to only name the hostilities after the name that was used in the Russian empire, but none of them says that those Tatars who lived in Caucasus were not the same people as modern day Azerbaijanis. On the contrary, we have the sources that say quite the opposite, and those sources are used in the article. By looking at the history of the article it is clear that the article was stable since October 27, until on November 27, one month later, VartanM came and reverted the article to the older version: [42] Note that he never even tried to apply for any sort of dispute resolution, the sole purpose of his revert seems to be getting reverted and then report it here, claiming to ban those who happen to disagree with his POV edit from the article. This tactics previously worked on some other articles, which encourages such behavior. I hope the admins reviewing this report will take time to look into everyone's behavior. Grandmaster (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Did you just dismiss 30+ reliable neutral sources? And thats from someone who couldn't come up with one decent source to back-up his failed attempt at OR?. Your own source says exactly what was written in that article. VartanM (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano II, Giano II, Giano II is... (just kidding, I hope for once someone will read this and see how Grandmaster is being dishonest) Grandmaster claims that the majority position has no reliable source. Several were provided not limited to the title. And I'll provide here some of them. (Grandmaster's dishonesty can be exposed by the fact that he claims the majority position can not be backed by any reliable sources)

Azerbaijani national identity is a recent growth, following a period in the early twentieth century when Azeris identified themselves with other … (New Terror, New Wars, Paul Gilbert, Edinburgh University Press, 2003 p. 61)

Azerbaijan features an official national identity based on an improbable blend... In actuality there has been little historical basis for national identity formation among Azeri elites. ... (National Identity and Globalization, Douglas W. Blum, Cambridge University Press, (2007) p. 106 )

Azerbaijani national identity is a relatively recent formation: before World War I, the people of this territory were alternatively referred to as Turks, Tatars, and Caucasian Muslims. (Language Policy in the Soviet Union, Lenore A. Grenoble, Springer, 2003, p. 124)

In fact, the very name Azerbaijani was not widely used until the 1930s; before that, Azerbaijani intellectuals were unsure about whether they should call themselves Caucasian Turks, Muslims, Tatars, or something else. (Modern Hatreds, Stuart J. Kaufman, Cornell University Press, 2001, p.56)

It was already told to Grandmaster that all Tatars in the Caucasus were not all Turkic speaking. Two sources were provided to him: In 1897 'Tatars'-which officially included most Muslim groups... (Socialism in Georgian Colors: The European Road to Social Democracy, 1883-1917, Harvard University Press (2005) p. 19). Nomads, be it Kurds, Circassians were also counted as Tatars. Here is another from Britannica 1911, it says the same thing: The Tatars of the Caucasus seem to be for the most part Azerbaijan Turks mingled with Armenian, Georgian, Lesghian and other blood. But the name is often loosely applied to any Mahommedan Caucasian tribe. So definitely Azerbaijani does not exactly equal Tatar.

Grandmaster is also, as repeated countless numbers of times, very dishonest, the article was created by a Georgian user, with the Tatar term, (something which Grandmaster claims being an Armenian POV) and the usage of Tatar. Grandmaster was actually the first one to erase it and place it in parenthesis.

The purpose of Grandmaster's POV pushing is to name all of the Turkic people north of Araks river Azerbaijani, before there was any Azerbaijan north of the river. Dozens and dozens of sources were provided, and Grandmaster still distorts, twist and is being dishonest by answering as if there was some rational opposition between both parties. But we have yet to see anyone taking the time to read what the problem is, and how he's being dishonest. --VartanM (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And in republic of Azerbaijan media, Armenia is sometimes called "occupied western Azerbaijan". But it's not just north of the Araks river - for the claim to remain logical Azerbaijan also extends the claim far into Turkish territory and says that all Turks living in eastern Turkey are actually "Azerbaijanis". Of course on an official level this isn't said much by Azerbaijan because it would anger Turkey. There was an editor who recently edited the Erzurum article to claim that Erzurum was an Azerbaijani city. Meowy 21:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


This is from the article about Azerbaijan from Britannica, written by Ronald Suny:

As social resentments festered, particularly in times of political uncertainty, ethnic and religious differences defined the battle lines; bloody clashes between Azerbaijanis and local Armenians took place in 1905 and 1918.

They were referred to as “Tatars” by the Russians; the ethnonym Azerbaijani (azarbayjanli) came into use in the prerevolutionary decades at first among urban nationalist intellectuals. [43]

Another source:

Until the 1905-6 Armeno-Tatar (the Azeris were called Tatars by Russia) war, localism was the main tenet of cultural identity among Azeri intellectuals.

Willem van Schendel, Erik Jan Zürcher. Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. I.B.Tauris, 2001. ISBN 1860642616, 9781860642616, p. 43

So the people in Transcaucasia, whom Russian called Tatars, were Azerbaijanis. It could be that they included other Muslims among them, but the majority of those people were Azerbaijani. That's what the sources say. Again, this is not a place to complain about content disputes, take it to dispute resolution, you never even attempted to get this issue resolved via DR, instead, you chose to ask the admins to ban those who happen to disagree with you. Grandmaster (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would like to ask the admins once again to put an end to personal attacks on me. VartanM says: Grandmaster still distorts, twist and is being dishonest. I wonder if WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are still in force here? Civility supervision is a part of VartanM and Meowy's paroles, but they feel free to attack other users, and no one tells them to stop. Grandmaster (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is needless to add anything else, as again, Grandmaster is substituting decades of scholarship and publications for one quote from Britannica over and over again. When several times it was presented to him, that Adil Baguirov and his friends massively campaigned to have Sunys head out from Britannica. The same thing was attempted for Encarta. Britannica’s example shows more the way Adil Baguirov’s team threats results than actual scholarship. Besides Britannica is a tertiary source not secondary. For the rest, I’m not even going to waste my time, when obviously you are still attempting to distort by your second source which says Azeri and not Azerbaijani. You know that there was endless of discussions about this and you are still doing this as if it has never taken place. VartanM (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this particular noticeboard is the correct place to discuss this issue of the use and misuse of the word "Azerbaijani". The whole issue need to be carefully presented, needs to be discussed withthe aim of establishing a Wikipedia policy on its use, and should not based on a discussion about the actions of individual editors. Can administrators suggest an alternative venue for this to take place? Meowy 16:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree that Grandmaster along with Parishan really push this to the brink but you are right that a more permanent policy is required. Everytime this issue comes up I always ask, what did the Azeris/Tatars identify themselves as back then? Nothing. As for a venue that can come up with a settlelemnt, maybe an Armenian and Azeri wikipedians cooperation board?-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 14:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Grandmaster has been violating Wikipedia's rules, both in letter and spirit, and should be suspended from editing articles related to Nagorno-Karabakh. He pushes POV and defies consensus-building measures. He uses dubious sources and resorts to frivolous reverts. Capasitor (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Science Apologist and Pseudoscience[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.png Relevant discussion atWikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ScienceApologist (4th)
User talk:ScienceApologist#Meatpuppetry
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop#ScienceApologist banned
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist

SA has just been blocked (under the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience case) by an admin with whom they have had intense personal conflicts . Evidence of that conflict is here. While it may not be good practice for arbitration enforcement to have an arguably involved administrators placing blocks, I am also concerned that SA is currently a party to an arbitration case I started, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, and that any such block may impact SA's ability to participate in the case. Therefore, I'd like this AE block to be reviewed. Please, don't reverse the block without obtaining a consensus first. Jehochman Talk 20:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no personal conflict with ScienceApologist. All of my actions with this editor have been as an administrator. See WP:UNINVOLVED. The case is pretty open and shut: ScienceApologist was under a page ban at WP:FRINGE, and this ban was upheld by other admins. ScienceApologist violated his ban, ScienceApologist has been blocked. See his talkpage for more details. --Elonka 21:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The discretionary sanctions restriction says that in order to be considered uninvolved, an administrator must not be engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Elonka doesn't have a current dispute, and the block is a valid one no matter who made it. I say it stands. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh joy. The page ban is logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log of blocks and bans. SA was notified.[44] SA's actual edits to the article are here and here. So not only did he violate the ban, he edit warred on the page. 48 hours seems generous. GRBerry 21:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the merits, given Elonka's disdain for science-oriented editors the potential for drama would have been reduced if the block were done by a more neutral admin. This assumes of course that drama reduction is considered a good thing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Elonka is clearly involved and this could be construed as a misuse of admin tools. Verbal chat 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
"regardless of the merits"? Sorry, but that's what admins do, take action based on the merits. Good block. Ronnotel (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Elonka's anti-science attitude towards editor is obvious. Why she would take this step is impossible to ascertain, but she should have no involvement with SA, given their past interaction. Elonka is not a neutral admin in this matter. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Administrators are not disbarred from enforcing arbitration remedies merely because they have previously enforced them and the subject of the enforcement has decided that the administrator does not like them. A 48 hour block will not significantly impact on Scienceapologist's participation in the ongoing Cold fusion case. There is no problem with this block. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Sam Blacketer, Ronnotel, Hemlock Martinis, and GRBerry. Concerned that several editors here are personally attacking Elonka ("Elonka's disdain for science-oriented editors", "Elonka's anti-science attitude") rather than addressing the substance of this block. ScienceApologist edit-warred, was warned, continued to edit war despite the warning, was banned for 30 days, ignored the ban to continue the same edit war with inflammatory edit summaries and uncivil discussion. I brought this matter to Elonka's attention because as she was the one issuing the page ban originally (endorsed by Lar), it seemed proper that she should also be the one enforcing the page ban. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Sam. For clarity, are you commenting as Sam the Editor, or Sam on behalf of the Arbitration Committee? Jehochman Talk 21:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
As an individual administrator who is also a member of the arbitration committee and familiar with the background. Not on behalf of the committee but I should advise you that in my experience it is highly unlikely they will disagree. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Disagreeing is one of the major skills lacking in the current ArbCom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hasn't the 'Elonka shouldn't block SA because Elonka's got a known bias' thing come up before? Shouldn't Elonka get the point already? Get someone else to do it, to avoid this crap? That said, this is a good block. Unfortunately the 'good block' part is going to stick in Elonka's mind, not the 'Avoid picking fights that get you more shit' part, ehich means we'll see this again soon. ThuranX (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Two comments:

That sounds like an excellent idea. I'd like any further blocks applied to SA to come from administrators with whom SA does not perceive an existing conflict. We don't need to give SA any more grounds for gaming or disruption (evidence at this page). Jehochman Talk 22:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. SA is subject to the same rules as the rest of us and it is not up to WP to conform to his perception of what is fair and what isn't. We've already heard from an ArbCom member that the block will not interfere with his participation and that Elonka's actions were not unwarranted. If SA suddenly finds that he needs to participate at the ArbCom case, he can make a request through the normal channels. Enough bending over backwards for this particular user. Ronnotel (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
An accurate summary.
Sam Blacketer also said it correctly. By the nature of their role, some admins will become disliked by some users. It's no bad thing to stand back a bit, let it be seen what others think a while, but there is no rule "an admin who isn't liked by a user cannot act on their conduct", and probably never will be such a rule, for obvious reasons. So far not one person on this page has put forward what might be a compelling case for overturn. The case would be: "SA is EITHER not under an Arbcom-derived page ban, OR (if he is) he did not breach it (eg by editing that guideline while page banned)". Is anyone proposing to make that case? Those are the kinds of questions that I'm not seeing anyone propose.
ThuranX makes a good point. The problem is, if SA did breach an agreed page ban, then why didn't anyone else act first? Editing guidelines one is affected by, and page-banned from, is not trivial. It exists to prevent some unhelpful kinds of conduct so editors (including SA) could focus on productive content. If nobody else actually says "no" when issues persist, and takes the appropriate action, then the same admin often ends up picking up the baton. In theory Wikipedia has many admins willing to share such work, but in practice sometimes more need to do so. If you expect Elonka to let others handle matters, then others have to also be willing to take such things seriously too, and to take their share of the discomfort of drawing lines on conduct where appropriate. Worth thinking about.
(Elonka, anyone else - if you ever want someone to help on this, you can always ask at ANI: "I've been watching <X issue or user> for <Y> matters. In the interests of more eyeballs I'd like to step back a while. Can someone else take over watching for me so I can do so?" You can see what response it gets, and then judge for yourself.)
As to the other concern, SA will have no problem participating at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion; blocked or unblocked, users always have ways to present their evidence there, and disruption to everyday editorial and project activities is more important than the ability to post directly (rather than by proxy) at RFAR. Not a problem, that'll be taken care of. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There are two standards to consider: 1/ what is allowed by "the rules" and 2/ what is best practice. If a user experiencing difficulties has expressed intense negative feelings towards an administrator, it is best practice for that administrator to give them as much space as they can. I feel the problem FT2 points out -- not many admins are willing to wade into difficult situations. I am currently at arbitration with SA, so I will not administrate anything with respect to them. Additionally, SA has accused me of harassment, so that's a second reason I will not block them. If I obseved problem editing by SA, it would take just a few minutes to harvest diffs and file a report on this board. That would resolve the problem with minimum opportunity for fusses. Last time Elonka blocked SA, SA retaliated with disruptive actions in multiple fora, ultimately leading to the arbitration case. For the sake of efficient administration of the project, can we please shoot for best practices rather than minimum standards? Thank you. Jehochman Talk 18:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka has definitely rowed with Science Apologist before, I think over edits to WP:FRINGE itself or the noticeboard, within recent weeks. I can't think of an admin that isn't more involved in criticising SA recently, blocking him or appearing to 'target' him for blocking, arbcom enforcement crusades etc. I can't think of anyone less neutral over him at this time. Having said that, it may not mean the block isn't correct arbcom enforcement; the pseudoscience arbcoms don't seem to have been enforced for some time, not that they are necessarily useful. Sticky Parkin 16:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course. However, I am not saying Elonka did wrong. I am saying that her involvement risked generating more heat than light (which in fact is what has happened, most regrettably), and that in such situations the best practice is to be a team player and pass the responsibility along to another administrator. (This is advice that I should have paid closer attention to myself on several past occasions.) By bringing the matter here, other admins have confirmed the block, and now SA has much less opportunity for wikilawyering. Jehochman Talk 16:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Threats[edit]

ScienceApologist has just threatened to maim, poison and kill specific editors (including myself). [45] Enough is enough. Will someone sack up and indef ban this editor once and for all? -- Levine2112 discuss 03:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I would if I were not involved in an arbitration case. Everybody hang on. It is being handled by somebody else. It will be dealt with quickly. Jehochman Talk 03:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't dispute that this language is uncivil enough to merit a block, but please don't tell me that SA's post is being taken as a serious threat. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Same here. They're obvious references to those editor's area of interests, intended to be taken in jest. I'm amazed that he didn't menace homeopathy proponents with drowing them in destilated water. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
After he (or one of his mates) tried to get me to divulge my real name and home address earlier today [46], ScienceApologist then threatens to kill me. Yes, I am taking this very seriously. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Claiming to take those threats seriously doesn't pass the sniff test, Levine2112. If you want to claim they are blockably incivil, feel free, but claiming that they should be taken seriously is impossible to take as an assertion made in good faith.—Kww(talk) 04:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not concerned about blocking/banning him at this point. That should be a given. I am more concerned about my safety here. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Please stop being silly. This board is not a place for humor.—Kww(talk) 04:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
It is unacceptable to post threats, even in jest. I am OK with FT2's resolution, but in no way does that condone what SA posted or suggest that anyone else should ever post something like that. An indefinite block would have been fully justified, but FT2 decided to give SA another chance. That's a judgment call. Jehochman Talk 04:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Whether written in jest or not, making such a comment isn't particularly wise. Coupled with SA's most recent comment, I'm not left with a particularly warm-and-fuzzy feeling about this editor continuing here. His problems are well known, and if the decision was mine, he'd be shown the door...permanently. We all known that will not happen, but something should be done. - auburnpilot talk 04:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, FT2 seems to have resolved this particular matter, but there's nothing preventing anyone from giving evidence about SA's behavior at the Cold Fusion arbitration case. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I concur with the idea of an indef block at this point. These comments and edit summaries are not acceptable.[47][48][49][50] If any new editor said these kinds of things, they would already be blocked, and their talkpage protected. Instead, this is like ineffective parenting: "Stop it." "No, I mean it, stop it." "Okay, that's it, last warning." "What did I just tell you?" "Stop it or you're really going to get it." "Oh come on, how many last warnings do I have to give you?" "Really, I mean it this time, you have to stop..." (etc) ScienceApologist's block log is already one of the most extensive logs I've ever seen,[51] and even on his current 48-hour block, Checkuser seems to be confirming that ScienceApologist is just sending in blatant meatpuppets to edit war on his behalf. Eventually the time for second chances has to be done, and the community's patience exhausted. It's time to block indefinitely. --Elonka 04:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I dislike the notion that an editor can make a death threat, credible or otherwise, and then be allowed to continue editing absent any display of remorse. This type of behavior creates a chilling atmosphere, for the target as well as any one with whom the editor is in conflict. I'd like to see some sort of acknowledgment from this editor that a line was crossed before editing privileges are restored. Ronnotel (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
At this point SA is not a net benefit to the project. Indefinite block until/unless behavior and attitude improve, I would say. --John (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
not a net benefit to the project? You probably should be looking at what we are actually trying to do here at Wikipedia - here's a hint "Write an encyclopedia". The fact that editors get frustrated with Civil POV pushers and blow up is a symptom of Civil POV pushers, not with the editor who has just blown up. You all know this, you all discuss it endlessly, you all determine it's a problem, yet here we are - with yet another datapoint. Shot info (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The comment was clearly uncivil but is obviously not a threat. The fact that he refers to putting fluoride in various editors water should make it clear that this is an extreme attempt at sarcasm. Any attempt to claim this was a threat is simply not credible. Moreover, when someone has repeatedly asked certain people to stay off the person's talk page don't be too surprised when they get upset that the people do not so. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Particularly when the instigator of this report (ie/ Levine2112) didn't just edit once or twice, but 23 times and 12 times in a row. Harrassment - so who exactly is doing it? Shot info (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
SA's comments were beyond the line and certainly could have justified a block. However, As Shot Info has pointed out, Levine2112's edits to SA's talk page, including this group of 12 straight edits, looks like an attempt to bait SA into an uncivil response. My sympathy for SA is pretty low at this point, but I can't say that Levine2112 deserves our sympathy either. If SA continues editing, it might be a good idea to prevent Levine2112 from making further posts to SA's talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If only my concerns near the top of this thread had been heeded, SA might not have come to such a low point. There need to be consequence for the folks who were baiting him on his own talk page while he was blocked. An editor cannot walk away from their own talk page so easily. We are in the right place, so let's discuss what those sanctions should be, and to whom they should be applied. Jehochman Talk 05:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
To start the discussion, I think a lengthy block of Levine2112 would be good deterrence, per the evidence linked by Shot info and Akhilleus. Jehochman Talk 05:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Part of me supports such a block but fears the punitive element. On the other hand, it would presumably deter Levine from trying to pull this stunt again. Maybe 1 week? Long enough to make clear that Levine's behavior was unacceptable but not so long as to make the matter punitive? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
What exactly would a block of Levine2112 accomplish? It looks to me like Levine2112 was properly collecting data as part of an SSP report. Granted, he probably should have put the information on an SSP page instead of ScienceApologist's talkpage, but he eventually figured that out, and started putting the information at SSP instead: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/ScienceApologist (4th) (not bad, considering it's his first ever SSP report). I'm not seeing anything worth blocking him over. If anything, we should be encouraging him to help out with other SSP reports as well, since he seems to be showing some talent for it. --Elonka 05:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
What would you be blocking Levine for again? I'm not sure I saw it - I did see he was being pretty zealous toting up those IP edits, but which policy does that violate? Avruch T 05:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the need for a block - but given that there is a case of poke...snarl...poke...snark+bite....POKE....IRIPYOURARMOFF, perhaps if the poker should just be encouraged to chill out? As for SSP, well Levine was proven rather incorrect in his accusation. So in fact his harrassment was just that - harrassment. Are we still all surprised that a harrassed editor kind of goes off when he/she is harrassed and admin(s) seem to be just standing around saying "nothing to see here...."? Shot info (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Avruch basically says it. But to be clear, I apologize for posting so many messages at SA's talkpage. I wasn't trying to harass him; I was just trying to be helpful and collect diffs of possible sock activity. Now that I understand the proper venue for this kind of data collection, I won't put it on a user talkpage anymore. Elonka is right. It was my first SSP filing, so I was hesitant about doing it. Funny enough, I was moments away from writing Jehochman for help setting the SSP up since I know that he has expertise in that arena; but then I figured out the issue (Adding the "4th" to the report). So again I apologize for the abundance of posts and I think my last post on ScienceApologist's page confirms that I was not trying to bait, but rather get all of the discussion off of his page and onto the proper venue. Sorry again. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
A week for deterrence sounds good to me. Levine2112's behavior was out of bounds and directly contributed to a serious disruption: SA got very upset, arbitrators were messaging each other back and forth, somebody called the police (like the NYPD has nothing better to do with their time), in short, real harm to real people. This was the predictable result from Levine2112's baiting. There needs to a consequence to deter repeats. Jehochman Talk 06:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Isn't needless drama creation sufficient? His behaviour during this report alone has been a clear demonstration of lack of sound judgment combined with a strong desire to stir trouble. Pretending to treat that joke as a serious threat comes clearly under the umbrella of disruptive editing in my book. We do need to bear in mind that in the innumerable exaggerated and unreasonable reports of wrongdoing by SA that get dragged in here, Levine2112 is frequently involved. This whole quagmire is a result of behavioural failures on both sides. If the reporters had been blocked on most of those previous occasions, this situation would not be the horrible mess it is today.—Kww(talk) 06:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Levine2112 has posted above that he understands what he did wrong, and he has promised not to do it again.[52] I can't see as a block would be at all helpful at this point. It's not preventative, because he's said he's not going to do it anymore. It's not coercive, because he's acknowledged the concerns and said he's not going to do it anymore. So why block? --Elonka 06:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The "preposterous charade" comment below sums it up. We've been dragged to Arbcom hundreds of times over this kind of crap. Levine2112 explicitly denies bad motives ("I was not trying to bait"), which either means that he does not understand that what he did was wrong, or that he thinks he can pretend that he doesn't and get away with it. Block him for a month, block the next editor that drags us in here for a month, and keep doing it until this crap stops.—Kww(talk) 06:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Levine2112's preposterous charade above may make one's blood boil with contempt but ultimately it only served to demonstrate dishonest motives. There's no way a block is going to get support and it wouldn't achieve much anyway. I propose a 1 month ban from this page for using it in bad faith; if he needs to make a report, he can email it to an admin. CIreland (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
That approach may work. Additionally, Levine2112 should be banned from any further interaction with SA. Somebody cleverer than me may suggest proper wording. Jehochman Talk 06:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Considering the heavy overlap in the areas in which they edit a ban on interaction will be quite difficult to construct. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure SA is going to be doing much editing in the near future. Can you folks figure out some sort of consequence. I am done here for the evening. Jehochman Talk 06:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Definitely some sort of consequence for Leveine2112. A short block and a ban from this page and at least a stern warning about interaction with SA. dougweller (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
That sounds about right. I was going to propose something similar. Cardamon (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree with both Kww and CIreland, and Jehochman on general principle. The commentary on my talkpage was stretching my good faith; when Levine tried to get me to take action with the police via email with appeals to emotion, I realized I'd been taken advantage of by his dog and pony show. east718 // talk // email // 07:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) A topic ban for both of them (exact area to be discussed) and a restriction from editing each other's talk pages, anybody? --John (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with a topic ban and a restriction from editing each other's talk pages. Frankly, I don't see how this is a blockable offense, as it was not incivil or a personal attack, but Levine2112 collecting information for a SSP case. Granted that it should have been posted on the SSP page instead of cluttering SA's talk page, but this could have been handled far better on SA's end. I noted that FT2 has protected SA's talk page for the duration of the block, which was a good move; if the incivility and gross personal attacks continue post-block, then I move that SA be permanently blocked, pending further review of his actions and the outcome of the Cold Fusion ArbCom case. seicer | talk | contribs 14:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
To keep SA and MartinPhi apart we ended up having to write a community sanction keeping the two of them apart. It is here. Perhaps we should duplicate that restriction here, preferrably as an interim measure. For the long run, I think all the relevant evidence should be added to the current arbitration case. GRBerry 15:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree. I believe there is consensus support for that. Would you like to implement it, effective from now until the end of the case? (I am a party to the case so I should not do it myself.) Jehochman Talk 15:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I voluntarily resigned as an administrator last month when someone asked me to run for ArbComm. It proved to me that I was spending too much time on the wrong sort of work. Obviously, my attempt to stay away from dispute resolution isn't working very well, but I'm not willing to pick the tools back up. And SA has as little belief in my impartiality as he does in Elonka's, wrongly in each case, so even if I had the tools it would not be a low drama step for me to implement. GRBerry 15:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am clerking the Cold Fusion case, so I will not be commenting on the merits or lack thereof of the complainants and other ideas expressed, but I will note procedurally, that the complaint here is outside of arbitration enforcement, and the admins involved should consider a wider community involvement via WP:AN or WP:ANI--Tznkai (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, they seem to have been bickering within the realm of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Is there any reason that discretionary sanctions remedy cannot be employed? Jehochman Talk 15:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Upon examination - maybe, maybe not. I leave it to the administrators here whether this issue falls within "area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted)" or within more general policies.--Tznkai (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I am still in support of an indef block for ScienceApologist, since he has not responded to multiple warnings and other efforts to get him to modify his behavior. As for Levine2112, I'm still not entirely understanding what the current concern is. I agree that he was being somewhat disruptive, but he has stopped that behavior, and has acknowledged that he understands what he did wrong, and that he will not repeat. If there is other behavior from his side that is still being disruptive, we could potentially implement ArbCom sanctions, but we'd want to warn him first, and give him an opportunity to modify his own behavior so that sanctions are not necessary. That is the intent of the discretionary sanctions from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, that "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.". Levine2112 definitely knows about the case, but I don't believe we've counseled him on what he needs to do differently. Now, if we do counsel him on what needs to change, and he does not change the behavior, then sanctions might be appropriate. But so far I'm not seeing anyone making specific suggestions other than "ban him". So again, what do we want to see him do differently? The way that sanctions are supposed to work, is that first we define, then we counsel, via a clear note on his talkpage, and then only if the counseling is ignored, should we proceed to a ban or block. --Elonka 18:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, would you be willing to issue the warning and provide the counseling? Jehochman Talk 18:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that Levine2112 doesn't understand what behavior is problematic here, any more than SA doesn't understand what behavior is problematic. Both of them have been advised not to do various things, and they choose not to follow the advice. For Levine2112, what needs to change is that he needs to interact with SA as little as possible, and he needs not to post to SA's talk page, under any circumstances. But Levine2112 should have already known, long before yesterday, that posting sockpuppet accusations on SA's talk page would have no benefit for the encyclopedia, and was highly likely to lead to an angry post from SA and an ensuing drama fest. Does this justify SA's "threat"? No; both editors were acting foolishly. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Bingo. SA's frustration was not formed in a vacuum and the lashing-out was a predictable result of actions that were at best inappropriately inflammatory and aggressive. I find SA's various responses wholly and incontrovertably unacceptable for civil discourse, but Levine2112's hyperbole and hyperventilation regarding the "threat", and subsequent denial of any untoward motives strains credulity; if the situation was reversed (SA posting 23 messages on Levine2112's talk page, accusing, accurately or otherwise, Levine2112 of sock/meatpuppetry), the potential dramatic outcomes would still be obvious, and any plea of ignorance regarding those expectations would lack complete credibility. These two fight all the time, both constantly seeking to rid Wikipedia of the other.
So, what to do...? SA's voluntary wikibreak and the page protection serve functionally as a month-long block from editing (an arguably reasonable outcome). I say we hold him to that wikibreak: no block needed unless he comes back before the New Year. (Perhaps it would be reasonable to allow reversions of obvious vandalism, or content work in userspace? Dunno.) Furthermore, I think we strongly encourage Levine2112 to take a similar length wikibreak for his part in stirring up this hornet's nest. Finally, both Levine2112 and SA should be indefinitely banned from each other's talk pages and from directly pursuing administrative action against each other on this board and various ANs--if something is important enough to be considered for action, they'll have no problem finding a third party to broach the topic (this needn't be a prohibition on involvement in such discussions, rather a forced application of a 2nd opinion sanity check). These would have the benefits, if followed, of requiring no more admin button pressing for this event, allowing a cool-off period for everyone, and reducing the potential for future drama. — Scientizzle 20:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Something has got to be done here. SA's "threat" was obviously not a serious threat that he intended to carry out, but that doesn't make it ok. On an unrelated discussion, he falsely accused me of extortion via a protection racket (utterly fanciful nonsense), then refused to retract his obiously false libel. The run off at the mouth without consequences cycle needs to come to an end at some point. --B (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
While it's clear that ScienceApologist should be permanently banned for this edit, it's equally obvious that there will be no consensus here to do so: too many editors, even administrators, will insist that ScienceApologist's comments were all in good fun, and perfectly acceptable conduct. Therefore, the only available means by which to permanently remove ScienceApologist's editing privileges is to file a request for arbitration concerning him. Relevant prior cases include Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. John254 20:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I share your frustration. We are too lenient with excusing or just plain ignoring bad behavior when it comes from productive editors. Until his attack on me, I was guilty of it too in this case. --B (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I have already filed a request for arbitration, and already requested a ban. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop#ScienceApologist banned. What a regrettable turn of events. Jehochman Talk 21:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
In reply to John 254- I don't understand why we need another arbcom case, can't we just enforce the old ones, or don't they cover this sort of stuff ofvarious kinds, anything in this and the section above? Or do you mean Elonka has enforced with her action in the above section, then we need something done about this threats bit? Surely a block of some kind for the threats would suffice. Sticky Parkin 16:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Lighten up, Francis. rdfox 76 (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know if I'm allowed to comment here, but I just want to point out that there were plenty of people around to tell Levine2112 that he should make his comments elsewhere, if that was the case. I'm surprised, to say the least, that his actions are being so severely punished. Weren't some of the same people commenting here monitoring the discussion on SA's page? It seems like now in the wake of some unfortunate actions by SA, Levine2112 is being scape goated as the cause. If we had it to do over again, we would have suggested moving the discussion about sock puppets and such elsewhere. And SA could simply have said: "Take this discussion elsewhere." But I was as shocked as anyone, I suspect, by SA's outbursts, and I don't think it's reasonable to punish Levine2112 so substantially for a series of events that look bad in hindsight but that no one could have predicted at the time. Needless to say, I expect any future activities he has with respect to SA will be closely supervised.ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)