Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive37

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

Colonies Chris and Kendrick7: due process in question[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Colonies Chris, a party to the current ArbCom "date-unlinking" case, has been blocked by the trainee clerk on the case, User:Tiptoety, for allegedly breaking a temporary injunction issued by ArbCom on 13 January. This raises three issues concerning both tenets of natural justice ("Everyone is entitled to a hearing" and "Justice must be seen to be done"). I'm sure that ArbCom is keen to adhere to these tenets, as a judicial body that—by its own policy—pays service to real-world legal principles.

  1. Apparently arbitrary punishment. Oddly, the block was without warning and gave the user no opportunity to respond to the accusation. This is in contrast to other blocks of parties in this case (e.g., those involving User:Ohconfucius and User:dabomb87, which have arisen from matters raised here by members of the opposing side and processed openly). Specifically, we deserve to know whether the trainee clerk (a) identified the alleged behaviour him/herself, or was alerted to it privately by an opposing party, and (b) considered posting the matter here before acting, as a matter of openness and fairness (where parties are expected to "notify the user of [their] report at his or her user talk page".
  2. Query as to whether the injunction has been breached. The injunction says, inter alia, "all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates" (my italics). "Mass delinking" was not explicitly defined, but it has already been established that unlinking in the course of other improvements is acceptable (diffs on request). Subsequently, Arbitrator Vandenburg made this statement: "The injunction doesnt completely prohibit the use of scripts, however editors should not be primarily focused on delinking." The user's unlinkings were a minor part of other significant improvements made to the articles cited by the trainee clerk. The user claims at his talk page that they include "unlinking duplicates or removing incorrect formatting". Nominators at FAC and FLC have been unlinking their articles as a matter of course (required by those processes); there appears to be no problem there, or has everyone been breaching the temporary injunction for the past six weeks on that count? Where does the boundary lie that marks out what "mass delinkings" are? If the boundary is not explicit, the matter should be brought here first to allow the affected party to argue their case, shouldn't it?
  3. Perception of one-sidedness. Clerks are expected to be neutral in their management of ArbCom cases; however, this sudden, unilateral blocking of a party from one side brings into stark view the fact that a party from the other side has been allowed to embark on a campaign to relink dates/date-fragments all over the place. I'm not blaming the trainee clerk for this, but the situation needs to be dealt with if we are to retain a sliver of confidence in the fairness of the hearings process. Far from being part of a larger article improvement program that has been ongoing for more than a year (in Colonies Chris's case), this appears to be a single-minded attempt to relink these items on a grand scale. A clear-cut, wilful breach of the injunction has escaped ArbCom's attention by one side, while punishment has been meted out without the opportunity for self-defence or debate by the other.

I believe it would be proper to (a) reverse the block and to allow Colonies Chris the opportunity to argue the case openly, here, in good faith, and (b) investigate Kendrick7's behaviour in this respect. Tony (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have asked an arbitrator multiple times to clarify the injunction, but to no avail (diffs available on request). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Goodness. I had no idea linking the year of the founding of the city where I grew up would become an arbitration matter. -- Kendrick7talk 05:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I have posted a courtesy note at Tiptoety's talk page, in case s/he has not put this on watch. Tony (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The block looks fine to me. There's some pretty clear testing of limits going on here. Administrators are like the Highway Patrol; they certainly aren't going to catch every speeder, nor is that expected of them. Risker (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, Kendrick7 has been caught here. Fifteen date links a day isn’t “testing of limits”; it’s pure & simple flouting of rules. If Tony or I were busy de‑linking 15 dates a day, we’d be strapped down and have bamboo shoots shoved under our fingernails. If you admins expect to be perceived as fair, maybe a *little* bit of warning is in order for Kendrick7?? I see that he just now (64 minutes after Tony’s above post, and only three minutes after responding to Tony on his talk page about this ANI) welcomed 63 editors using {{welcome-anon}} and this has pushed all his date-related edits off the top 50 list. Regardless, a look at his most recent 500 edits shows what he’s been up to. If he continues to get away with this, perhaps he should receive his second Barnstar for diligence:
Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
I award this Barnstar to you, Kendrick7 for your splendid accomplishment of flying under the radar, flouting MOSNUM guidelines, flouting ArbCom warnings, and linking 15 dates a day, day after day. That is diligence.
As for Kendrick7’s evasive response here: “Goodness. I had no idea linking the year of the founding of the city where I grew up would become an arbitration matter”, well, golly gee Kendrick, nice deflecto-attempt; but it’s not about a single edit you did to an article about the city in which you grew up; it’s purely about being a party to the ArbCom and making the linking of dates a focus of your daily efforts in defiance of an ArbCom ruling. So just pardon me all over the place if I have a problem with people who think rules, like “12 items or less at this grocery checkout stand” applies to everyone but you. Greg L (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Colonies Chris is not one to "test limits". Have you read what your colleague John Vandenburg said, quoted above? How does this relate to your conclusion that the block "looks fine"? I have raised a number of questions about procedural fairness that you have not responded to. A "looks fine to me" is not going to convince anyone, I'm afraid. We are still waiting to learn why Kendrick is allowed to flout the injunction, while Chris is punished for what appears to be not flouting it. We have been misled by John Vandenburg, and by the wording of the injunction, it seems. And concerning your bizarre analogy to cops and speeders: it would be a good idea for the ArbCom process to be seen to be fair to both sides, such that when CKatz comes along and points his finger at Chris, and I come along and point my finger at Kendrick, both are given equal weight. It has nothing to do with chance, as you seem to be suggesting. We await your further comments on these matters. The points are numbered above for convenient referencing in your reply.
And just so there's no doubt about this, Kendrick has been conducting a systematic program of relinking—typically 15 a day since about 28 February, but I see five on 23 February, so it's gone back further; these are visits to articles solely for the purpose of relinking years, and occasionally decades and other chronological items. I don't know how many diffs you require (they're all here on his contribs page, but if you want me to spend half an hour gathering them all, please let me know. Here are just a few from 7 March: [1], [2] (previous two a little revert-war with someone called Attilios), [3], [4], [5]. Seems to be an ongoing flagrant breach of the injunction, doesn't it? Tony (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, well, thanks for the star, GregL. But I'm not a party to this case, I've been linking years not dates, I've been doing so, with rare exception, only on pages linked from WP:MAIN, and I haven't been using any scripts or automation. This injunction simply doesn't apply to this as far as I am concerned and under the guidance John Vandenberg provided here. -- Kendrick7talk 20:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Fine, Kendrick, you aren’t officially a named party to the ArbCom. You are still a Wikipedian. And please don’t bother Wikylawyering with me. The term “date”, while somewhat ambiguous and causing some confusion as to what it means, doesn’t afford you any wiggle room here. MOSNUM has this to say about linking of “dates” or “chronological items”: Linking: Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so. Now, a “reason to do so” means more than “ ’cause I like ta.” As Saphic suggested, why not try to avoid linking controversial quantities of dates (years).

    Let’s look at just one of your edits. Your edit to Cayman Islands to link to the 1503 article did nothing more than create yet another Treasure hunt link that takes readers to an article which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with either the Cayman Islands nor Christopher Columbus other than the fact that there is the one entry there about Columbus stumbling across the Cayman Islands in 1503, which the reader already knew before they clicked on the link. There is precious little in the 1503 article that even deals with the topic of “Island”.

    We link not “because we can”, but because there is topical and germane material in a related article that could enhance the reader’s understanding of the subject, better prepare them for their studies elsewhere, and ensure they will be conversant with someone skilled in the subject of the Cayman Islands. Unless you are linking the year 1589 in our Trivia article, which (curiously) is a year that is not linked, these links you are making are next to worthless and just desensitize readers to the links that truly have value.

    BTW, since the year 1589 in the Trivia article would enhance a reader’s understanding of trivia, be my guest to link it; I don’t mind at all. Greg L (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, Greg, you know that MOS page is protected because of edit warring over adding that very language. Let's refrain from pulling the wool over any administrator's eyes, OK? -- Kendrick7talk
Kendrick, while everything you say may be true, it would still be better to voluntarily honor the spirit of the injunction, which is to refrain from contentious date-related edits while the ArbCom case is being worked out. I want to see dates linked and in my preferred format too, but I want to get there the right way. --Sapphic (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I haven't violated the spirit of the injunction, nor do I have any plans to do in the future. -- Kendrick7talk 02:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • There may be some disingenuity here, as you relinked years in some 40+ articles over the last 3 days alone. Quite which articles and how they were chosen is not entirely relevant. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Knowing the way Colonies Chris works, I do not believe he violated the injunction in any way. I would not be at all surprised that the blocking admin saw the edit summaries and panicked. Having looked at all his edits of 6 March, very few edits actually involve dates, and those which do have an overwhelming amount of other improvements such as orthograph and overlinking ameliorations. The only conclusion any reasonable editor would reach is that there has obviously not been any "mass delinking of dates". The block makes me wonder if this is yet another trigger-happy admin acting without either careful research of the "problematic edits" or a proper warning posted on AE or the user's talk page. It further makes me wonder whether any of the parties to this dispute are actually allowed do any editing at all. The admin concerned should immediately review his/her action with a view to restating Chris' right to go about not violating the injunction. - Posted on behalf of User:Ohconfucius. Tiptoety talk 22:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

First let me start by saying that I apologize I was unable to respond to this earlier. Right as Tony1 posted to my talk page I was walking out the door to go to work, and upon coming home early this morning took advantage of the time to get some much needed sleep. My reason for saying this is to 1. explain why I did not respond earlier, and 2. to reinforce that I am human (needing sleep and all) and am prone to mistakes, not a robot who is 100% fair in every situation as I truly think “fairness” is different to each party involved and to each side of the dispute, and have not devoted my life to editing Wikipedia.

Now, to address Tony1’s comments above:

  1. I am not sure this block was given without any warning. I mean the parties were notified on their talk page in regards to the injunction and are well aware it was in place. I think the bigger question is why they thought it would be a good idea to push the limits. As for the other blocks, I do not recall there ever being warnings issued, nor do I feel there need be any issued. If a person violates a injunction put in place by ArbCom after they were notified, should they not be blocked? I felt no need to warn Colonies Chris as I would only be telling him something he already knew. As for your question in regards to how I became aware of the delinking, it was notified on my talk page by Ckatz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) whom I have never interacted with before, nor am I aware which side of the dispute he stands on. Because of this, I looked into the situation and as a reasonable administrator I blocked Colonies Chris for what appeared to me to be a fairly clear violation of the injunction. Should it have been posted to AE? No, I feel I would have taken administrative action anyways as like I said before, I feel he violated the injunction.
  2. You are right. The injunction leaves a lot of room up to the person enforcing it. To be honest, I never saw Vandenburg’s post. I instead did what I thought the injunction was here for, and that was to stop automated “mass” date delinking. And Colonies Chris’s appeared like mass delinking to me. I was able to easily provide 11 diffs, and there were more. I feel that the term “mass” is open to interpretation, and that interpretation is left up to the administrator taking the action. I really doubt had I taken this action against Kendrick7, the interpretation of "mass" would have been much different than my interpretation here.
  3. Please do not say I am being one sided. I am not magic, I am not a super hero. I can not see every violator, nor should I be expected to. I see what is presented to me. And yes, I looked at Colonies Chris’s edits (more than just the edit summaries). As for the post about Kendrick7 to my talk page, I did not have time to deal with it then. Like I said, I had work in less than a hour and was rampantly busy at the time. That said I am more than willing to look into the behavior of Kendrick7, and ask that in the future parties bring issues here opposed to my talk page in a hope to avoid situations like this as to be blatantly honest, situations like this make me think Wikipedia is a big waste of time.

Tiptoety talk 23:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Let me get this right: Kendrick gets a nicely worded note (look at the title) and two statements, although hedged, that he breached the injunction. But here's the clincher:

:"Because I was slow to respond to peoples concerns, and was not made aware of this until you had stopped linking dates a block would be viewed as purely punitive here".

So your slowness to respond is your excuse for acting in a totally biassed way? And because Kendrick has stopped his breaching since I notified him of this section (as a courtesy)? Pffff, why wouldn't he?

And the fact that Colonies Chris's actions were part of a much larger article-fixing program, in which many many other improvements were made to the articles, yet Kendrick blatantly visits articles to relink dates alone? You just pass over that, do you? I think it's disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.very disappointing. Tony (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I urge you to step into my shoes. Now, I know that you want to see Kendrick blocked and had I been a bit more on top of things he/she would have been. But remember here I also must follow the spirit of WP:BLOCK and I am responsible to the community who would view such a block as punitive, which would only further this growing problem and add fuel to the fire. Please assume good faith, this is not easy for me and I am learning very fast that this is one dispute I should have stayed far away from. But my intentions are not malicious, and I have no agenda here and no interest in seeing one party blocked while the other let go free. I am truly doing what I feel is right, and that may be (and obviously is) far different from what you feel is right. But, so be it. Tiptoety talk 04:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am reviewing the date (de-)linkings of both user:Colonies Chris and user:Kendrick7. As the clerk action of blocking user:Colonies Chris has been called into question, I have reviewed that first.

user:Colonies Chris was clearly aware of the injunction as he was formally notified by clerk Ryan [6](archive)

I've looked back as far as the 4th, when there were 36 edits followed by 23 edits on the 5th in the same editing session. It was an AWB run of 59 conversions of Concepción Province->Concepción Province, Peru and Juarez->Juárez. I have grouped them into

  • "didnt delink" - the editor did not delink when the opportunity was there
  • "clean" - the page did not have any linked dates, and consequently there was no delinking.
  • "delinked" - dates were delinked
4th
36 edits
5th
32 edits
6th
26 edits, converting "revison->revision" and "mangement->management", with date delinking conversion rules enabled again.

He delinked half of the pages, and of these 92 edits done with AWB, only 2 edits left any dynamic date elements linked. It is also worth noting that I saw one of the automated date delinks broke the page. As a result, the block for 24 hrs is extremely light, and he should have been blocked for much longer for flagrantly ignoring the injunction. And to those crying about the injunction being vague or misunderstood, the proper way to handle that would be to not do any date delinking until you were confident that it wouldnt break the injunction. It is possible to not do any date delinking to be extra sure; Colonies Chris only needs to turn off the date delinking rules in his AWB config in order to avoid further problems.

My intention is to now review Kendrick recent actions. If I am needlessly distracted here due to this review of Colonies Chris recent edits, I may not conclude my review of Kendrick actions tonight, in which case you will have yourself to blame if I also dont get it done tomorrow due to work. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Modification to injunction[edit]

One thing I think all concerned parties agree on is that the current situation — with anons (and editors who have specified "no preference") seeing an inconsistent mix of date formats within a single article — is bad. If people could agree to just fix formats within an article, and not link/de-link any dates (just leave all the date linking as-is) then I think that would actually be acceptable to everyone involved. Could the injunction be modified to apply only to changing the link status of dates, and to allow date edits that simply fix format? Or would that be too hard to enforce, since people could bury their linking/de-linking in a sea of format edits? --Sapphic (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree regarding formatting. We’ll be addressing this in the ArbCom and RfCs too, I expect. Greg L (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Sapphic, thank you for your attempts to bring about changes to the injunction. I have queried a clerk and Arb several times, but have either not received a response or have been waved off because (paraphrase) "the Arbs are close to a decision". Dabomb87 (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the injunction should have "dates" changed to "chronological items" as I explained here. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I find it odd that you (Dabomb87) are still delinking dates, despite the injunction. See, for example, these edits of yours: (1) and (2). See also this previous complaint about your delinking activities. Tennis expert (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • TE, I rarely bother to mess around in too many articles. If I stumble across one that has an inane date that is linked contrary to MOSNUM, I delink it. That doesn’t happen too often (I can’t exactly recall when I last bothered) and hardly qualifies as “mass delinking”. You’ve cited two whole examples where Dabomb87 has delinked dates. Both occurred on 7 March, where his edit history clearly shows he was busy with a wide variety of other types of edits. That doesn’t exactly impress as being sufficent evidence for “mass delinking.” Perhaps you might cite some better evidence. Greg L (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Those diffs were the first two I found when looking as his edits for March 6-7. But given that you're still unconvinced, I'll start examining his edits from, say, the last two weeks. Please let me know if that's still not good enough. Here's one I just found from March 5th after 5 minutes of looking: Thomas Jefferson University. Although I'm pretty good at finding diffs, feel free to help out with this task if you have time! Also, note this promise to arbitration enforcement from Dabomb87 on March 2: "I will not delink any dates if even this is not permitted. Please accept my apologies." So much for that.... Tennis expert (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note the "if even this is not permitted". I have received no clarification on this. I have not been mass delinking (the script has been disabled in my monobook). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A clarification[edit]

Let us make one thing very clear: enforcement of the injunction is left to the judgment of administrators in general, and that includes clerks (who are both familiar with the current injunctions and with the case background and thus are likely to be able to do the enforcement).

That means that, if in the administrator's judgment, the injunction has been violated by someone who is aware of it — and named parties are certainly reasonably presumed to be — then it is entirely appropriate to stop the violation with a swift block. This does not mean that any one administrator is able to see all violations, or that some putative "due process" has been violated because some have been caught and some have not. An unblock can be requested through the usual channels if the editor feels this is an error.

If you are unhappy that you have been caught violating the injunction and someone else hasn't, there is a simple solution that will leave everyone happy: don't violate the injunction to begin with; that guarantees you will not be blocked over it. — Coren (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that is manifestly unjust: Kendrick's actions (in full knowledge of the injunction) have been excused after they were brought here in detail. Chris's were punished without discussion or warning. It's not a matter of being "caught": it's a matter of treating people fairly in this forum. Kendrick, too, has been "caught". Tony (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hypothetical "justice" doesn't enter into it. If you don't start linking or delinking dates in violation of the injuction, you will not be blocked. If you do, you take the chance that you might be depending on circumstances and context. If you gamble on "X didn't get blocked doing N, I can safely do N-1" then you have to live with the consequences. — Coren (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The date linking case has not been the Arbitration Committee's finest hour. The problems started when the committee failed to define bounds of the case. This lead to chaos, several editors repeatedly ask for clarification. None came.
In the evidence collection phase, some editors had their concise and informative evidence summarily rejected because it was incorrectly formatted. Other editors could add 200 kilobytes of properly formatted drivel.
Corin's "clarification" demonstrated more confusion among the arbitrators. In a rare moment of illumination, Arbitrator Vandenburg, gave some limits on what was acceptable editing.[103] Colonies Chris was following that guidance and was summarily blocked.
The Arbitration Committee needs to understand that some of their actions in this case have had the appearance of bias. They need to exercise care that their actions are above reproach and do not appear to unduly favor one side in this case. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to respond to a few of the points made here. First of all, I don't believe that my actions were in violation of the injunction. It does not ban all unlinking, and John Vandenberg's suggestion that we should all just not do any unlinking at all goes well beyond any reasonable interpretation. It has been tested before and by those results, my actions were not in breach. If the injunction is now going to be interpreted more strictly, we need (a) to be told what the interpretation is, and (b) to be sure that it's being applied evenhandedly.
On the block itself - if you believed, Tiptoety, that I was violating the injunction, you could have sent me a message warning me that I was in danger of a block and requiring me to stop and to respond to you. Assume good faith, remember. I'm an editor of many years standing with tens of thousands of edits to my name. The block was not an urgent action vital to protect the encyclopedia, it was punitive. Therefore there is no reason Kendrick7 should not be subject to at least the same punishment, even though his blatant breaches have now stopped (for the time being).
What I'm seeing here, unfortunately, is the Arbs closing ranks and refusing to admit to a misjudgment. We're all human, misjudgments will happen, but the best way to regain the respect of editors is to acknowledge it and take some positive action to ensure that any harm done is mitigated and that it won't happen again. This means that other parties in breach of the new interpretation must suffer equivalent punishment, and that the terms of the injunction must be clarified so we know where we stand in future.
And most importantly, the whole Arbcom case needs to be progressed rapidly to a conclusion so we can stop tearing ourselves apart over this. I've many times come close to just quitting the whole thing over this. It's galling, after all the work I've put into the encyclopaedia over the years, to find myself treated as little better than a vandal. My unlinkings were just part of a large number of improvements to various articles, and you will note that despite their allegedly controversial nature, not one of them has provoked a reversion or even a comment from any of the articles' editors (unlike Kendrick7's relinkings, which were done in the face of active opposition). Colonies Chris (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The injunction was to "put a pause on" unlinking or linking efforts, which you were clearly not doing, and so the block was 100% appropriate. This is not merely closing ranks - you violated an injunction intended to reduce the tension surrounding this case and the sense of fait accompli. You misjudged whether the committee was serious about the injunction. The injunction didnt say that a warning was required. You may have stopped if asked, but then if we give everyone a warning, and no blocks, we end up with problems of socks and meatpuppeting. Ohconfucius has already been blocked twice for similar edits as yours. If you were unsure of whether you should keep using your AWB rules, you could have asked.
Kendrick7's mainspace edits are obviously not automated; that user is working on year articles, however I do see that Kendrick7's linking efforts as wading into deep water. Kendrick7 is definitely considering which links to add, and the opposition you speak of is indiscriminately reverting, socking and baiting Kendrick7.[104][105] Note that those edits were by Ohconfucius, who has now been blocked a third time. See User talk:Ohconfucius#Blocked for two weeks for violating temporary injunction while logged out, block evasion for more details. the notice
Kendrick7's activity has only now been raised to this forum, and I think that we need to clarify that linking of years also needs to be put on hold as Kendrick7 is going a bit to far with that. I've looked at every edit, but not carefully studied them, because in the course of analysing them, I found that Ohconfucius was using socks. Talk about unclean hands.
The case has been open a long time, and that is largely my fault, but we have not been idle: there has been the development of the RFC that Ryan is overseeing, and I am in the process of pushing the evidence that I have collected onto the /Evidence page - I have been talking to devs and raising bugs, adding to the documentation of the technology over on mediawiki.org, etc. This takes time. There is 4.5 years of history here, and core technology at stake, with editors accusing devs and each other of being a part of the problem and changing their tune over that time, for various reasons that need to be understood. And of course there is truckloads of other arbcom work. I am sorry it is dragging on, however the injunction should not been seen as a reason to speed up the case - we need clarity rather than more edit warring and wheel spinning.
John Vandenberg (chat) 14:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Let me echo the frustration expressed by Chris above. Whilst it may be normal to expect some small deviation between the interpretation of different Arbs as to exactly what the injunction covers, this does not appear to cover the difference (wrt Chris' 'crimes') expressed by Risker in relation to the complaint against me when I was not judged to be in violation. I am more than a little disappointed with Jayvdb's analysis above, which takes absolutely no consideration the qualitative improvement he has contributed with the edits analysed, but dissected crudely only in terms of numbers of articles which have had their dates removed. I am furthermore a little upset with the subtext of his message that if we are to further complain about the validity Chris' block, the action we seek against Kendrick will no be done tonight because we "will only have ourselves to blame". In any event, I have posted above diffs of Kendrick7's edits over the last 3 days, and it wont need a trainee arbcom clerk to work out that there are exclusively for the purposes of relinking years, and that there were not other improvements to the articles concerned in the same edit. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I was reviewing Kendrick7 edits; your list of diffs added nothing except to waste my time to read it and cross check whether you had something important to add that I may have been missing. Oh and then I had to deal with some socking thanks to yours truly. Consequently I havent sufficiently looked at Kendrick7's edits to arrive at a conclusion, nor have I spent my Sunday afternoon and evening enjoying the pleasurable task of working on the date delinking case. Yes, you have yourself to blame for the part you played in consuming my evening. It was not a subtext that I didnt want people to add banal posts here supporting each other - AE is not ANI - I was stating it as clearly as I could because I wanted to focus on reviewing Kendrick7's edits and get back to the date delinking case. Kendrick7's edits are year linking which the injunction does not explicitly cover, nor did we say "date fragments" were part of the injunction in order that the delinking of broken dynamic dates would clearly be acceptable. I think a few admins and/or arbs will need to comment on whether Kendrick7's year linking was against the spirit of the injunction, i.e. whether it was inflammatory or not, and then how to act on it.
John Vandenberg (chat) 14:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This is not a chatroom. Go to the arbitration pages if you want to engage in dispute resolution. I will block the next party who posts an irrelevant comment (i.e. not related to the purpose of this board) about this dispute. To reinforce what Jayvdb has said immediately above, this is not WP:ANI. Jehochman Talk 16:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy[edit]

Date linking/de-linking injunction violation[edit]

Resolved: User blocked, unblocked. Done. seicer | talk | contribs 11:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dabomb87[106] --Sapphic (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I explained this adequately—the article is a featured article, and is required to comply with all points the MOS, a point brought up a couple times already by other editors. I provided a pretty clear edit summary. I was consciously aware of each date link being removed, and can safely say that each date link removal was not in error. I never intended to delink any other article, and I don't think this qualifies as "mass removal". Dabomb87 (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Given the thread below, to which Dabomb87 contributed several times, there is no excuse for this sort of testing of limits. I will block their account for 24 hours for breaching Wikipedia:ARBDATE/Injunction. For the future, when filing a report, link to the relevant arbitration case please, to make things easier on those who may review these notes later on. Dabomb87, don't play games with ArbCom or arbitration enforcement. When they say something, they mean it. Jehochman Talk 02:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It says mass delinking. It has already been established here that people may delink in an individual article, along with other fixes. I do not believe this: Kendrick relinks 100s of articles and is not blocked; Dabomb87 unlinks one and is blocked. I'd like to know why such harsh, arbitrary punishments are being meted out. MASS, it says. MASS. MASS. Do you see that? SHould all FAC nominators be warned that every day they risk blocking? Tony (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you should read this clarification and undo the block. --NE2 02:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The injunction says nothing about a minimum number of articles to qualify as "mass". The edit in question removed all the date links from one article. This article has had date links since at least August 30, 2007 when it was promoted to Featured Article status. What was the urgency that justified making that provocative edit right after Dabomb87 engaged in a discussion on this board, knowing full well that an injunction was in effect? The edit was pure testing of limits, and very likely to provoke conflict at a time when we are trying to put out flames. The edit was most unhelpful, and now everyone knows that this sort of behavior is not allowed. We mean it. If there have been subsequent discussions, don't expect me to go fishing around for them. Those silly arbitrators should update their injunction so that it says what they mean. Jehochman Talk 02:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
"If you are consciously removing each bracket, and edit articles at a rate which is consistent with that, the injunction doesnt restrict you." --NE2 02:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The edit in question was a needless testing of limits. It was a purposeful breach. I have no idea where you got that statement or who said it. Jehochman Talk 02:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Diff link of statement (from Feb 5), but keep in mind that was over a month ago, and further comments have been made below on this very page by arbitrators. —Locke Coletc 02:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You might also want to read assume good faith after you read this clarification, which I linked above. --NE2 03:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
MOSNUM is disputed, stop using it as a hammer to force your POV on other editors. —Locke Coletc 02:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • (1) How do you read Dabomb's mind WRT to "testing the limits" and aimed "to provoke conflict"? You are a mind-reader? There is certainly no history of doing this that might suggest these motives, or perhaps you can point to it.
  • (2) In the case of Kendrick7, who really did breach the injunction massively—hundreds of times—there was just a little slap on the wrist. Your actions appear to confirm a blatant bias by ArbCom, and further jeopardises its claim to run a fair and neutral hearings process. Arguments such as "Oh, you were unlucky to be caught" and such, as used below, will convince no one. Kendrick was "caught" by being reported here: nothing was done. This sends a very bad message, doesn't it?
  • (3) Clarification: so any FAC nominator who removes the links from their nomination will be liable to blocking? Your statements "The injunction says nothing about a minimum number of articles to qualify as "mass". The edit in question removed all the date links from one article.: beg the question as to the safety of users at large. The injunction concerned all editors, not just parties to a particular hearing. Should we be reporting them here? We really need to get this definition of "mass" right, and you seem to be making up the law on the hop to justify your actions. Now it's the number of dates that are unlinked in a single article, not the number of articles; one article counts as "mass". Let me think about that.
  • (4) You appear to be in breach of two fundamental WP:ADMIN requirements to (a) communicate fully, before and after, the reasons for a block, and (b) to block only as "a last resort", to prevent harm to the project. It has all of the arbitrariness that characterises extreme regimes.

At the very least, the block should be reversed immediately. You were wrong. Tony (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I would encourage you to click on the diff above. Then I would encourage you to think: This has been a featured article which has been stable for some considerable time already, so it's not like the article is in featured article preparation. The edit did nothing but remove date links, and wasn't part of some general clean-up. Was it a good edit? Maybe, but considering the topic of this edit, the awareness of Dabomb of the sensitivity of such edits, and the absolute lack of any kind of time pressure, I think that this edit demonstrates at the minimum an extreme failure of judgement. What on earth made it so important to do this edit while MOSNUM is locked and the arbitration still under way? At the very minimum his edit was a further indication that some subset of the enforcers of date delinking are uninterested in consensus or cooperative editing. You should understand that I am actually for date delinking, but noticing what poor company I'm keeping is making me rethink my support of this position. I don't like being in the position of wanting to defend editors who are absolutely unable to conform to some minimal social norms. AKAF (talk) 08:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This is beyond ridiculous. These kinds of blocks, and much more importantly, these kinds of vindictive hostile reports, must stop immediately. The "injunction", if handled in this way, is evidently creating much more damage and bad blood than it could ever prevent. Fut.Perf. 09:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. AKAF, I have seen the edit. It does not satisfy the meaning of "mass delinking" in any sense. The imputed motives just not supported by evidence—they are merely an admin's claim, an outlandish one at that. The length of time the square brackets have been in the text is utterly irrelevant: who invented that one? Does that mean corrections should be made only to recent edits to WP's articles? Is there some new rule that I'm missing here? "What on earth made it so important to do this edit"—I don't think it was important or urgent; nor do I suspect that dabomb thought it was urgent. No one has answered my claims that Jehochman has breached policy tenets. I'd like a response on that. Nor has anyone explained why Kendrick7 was treated entirely differently for edits that are two orders of magnitude greater, whether in terms of the number of articles or units unlinked. Your use of the term "enforcers of date delinking" sounds like dishonest spin; I'm sure you didn't intend it that way. ArbCom is being made to look corruptly one-sided, I'm afraid. None of us wants that. Finally, I suggest you revisit your philosophical underpinnings if, as you claim, your judgements (here, concerning date unlinking) are hostage to the company you keep. Tony (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(Copied from AN)_ The edit in question by Dabomb is [107]. Dabomb had been commenting on the arbitration enforcement page, and so was aware that the very idea of delinking dates was under dispute (how could he not know?). Thus I agree with jehochman that the edit summary of that edit is provocative: "delinking dates and making dates the right format: this is a featured article and therefore must comply with all MOS guidelines".

The question whether that MoS guideline has agreement is well known to be disputed, especially by Dabomb, who has been discussing whether to place a "disputed" tag on it. For Dabomb to refer to that MoS page as if it is controlling when he/she knows that it is disputed is unlikely to help resolve the dispute, and more likely to irk those on the other side. It's a classic power move (and it does not build rapport with editors on the other side of the arbitration case).

Moreover, Dabomb had not previously edited the page in question, and made no other changes to it. I agree that if someone were to delink a date while making significant changes to an article, that would not violate the injunction. But to arrive at a page simply to change date linking isn't on, and Dabomb reasonably could be expected to know this.

If all editors would simply not change date linking styles until the arbitration case is settled, that would resolve the issue of blocks such as these. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:50, 2009-3-11 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pseudoscience Report (3)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved: I think we've all had QUITE enough Fringe Science cases at AE. How about trying to play nice with each other for a change? SirFozzie (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
In spite of the problematic conduct of SA, the conduct of Landed little marsdon has also been problematic. Therefore, a ban has been placed. Jehochman Talk 17:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This edit is not only POV-pushing, it also has totally failed verification as Talk:Parapsychology#Utrecht University clearly shows. Why should we allow such behavior at featured articles? Per this warning, it is clear that this user is aware that such advocacy is not tolerated. There have been enough warnings. It's time to start doing something about problematic editors. Please. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that a quick google would have turned up ample evidence than the university of Utrecht had the first chair of parapsychology in Europe, and that internet courses in parapsychology are offered there, it is hard to believe that ScienceApologist did not know this and therefore this should be considered as a vexatious complaint. Further checking suggests that the Utrecht unit may no longer be operating, but this makes my edit an honest mistake rather than some deliberate attempt to push what would in any event be a fairly mundane point. And given this mundane nature of my edit, the rabid tone of the above attack is quite bizarre. I note that scienceapologist has recently been banned from editing articles such as the parapsychology article but has been editing it nonetheless. Perhaps an extension of his ban would give him time to cool down a bit.
http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/parapsychologist
http://www.hollowhill.com/ghost-hunting/parapsychologydegree.htm
Landed little marsdon (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
LLM, do you seriously think those two links are reliable sources? Skinwalker (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
This is exactly the kind of nonsense that I can no longer be bothered dealing with. The sources above are not supposed to be RSs in the sense that they could be used to support article content. What they are supposed to be are sources that show that Utrecht had a parapsychology unit and that my edit was not pushing some bizarre pov of my own but was simply adding a fact to the article. That is what this discussion is about. FWIW, here is another source that not only confirms Utrecht but details another top notch university. If I was still editing I might add that info and source. You can if you want.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/09/05/offbeat.telepathy.reut/index.htmlLanded little marsdon (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Your CNN source would be a far more reliable source than the parapsycology faq website that you used previously. The test for you would be: if you used that source to support the Lund parapsychology program, would you also use the following quote "Verifying the existence of paranormal phenomena does not seem to be a promising field of science," said Sven Ove Hansson, professor of philosophy at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.? Or the following Despite decades of experimental research and television performances by people such as spoonbending psychic Uri Geller, there is still no proof that gifts such as telepathy and the ability to see the future exist, mainstream scientists say. from the same source? An editor seeking to improve the article in an NPOV manner it seems, would seek to use those balancing tidbits, no? Reflect on it a bit and tell us just what you would add from that source to improve the article. Vsmith (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This isn't really about sources. The issue is that the edit used the words "worldwide" and "leading" in a weasely way, to make it seem that academic parapsychology is more prevalent than it really is, i.e. to push the view that parapsychology is widely seen as a reputable discipline. Looie496 (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Good freaking grief. Why don't we just name this forum "24 hour Fringe Science argument center". How about both sides start to play nice with each other. (frustrated? ya think?) SirFozzie (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Unarchiving because I was working on this case when SirFozzie closed it. "Play nice" doesn't work with tendentious accounts. I am banning User:Landed little marsdon indefinitely from all pseudoscience pages. The record shows that this is a single purpose account that only seems to use Wikipedia to push a specific point of view on that topic. There are millions of other articles available. You are free to edit them. After you show us through successful editing that you understand how WP:NPOV works, I may support lifting this ban. Jehochman Talk 13:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


this seems little more than a spiteful tit-for-tat block totally out of proportion to anything I have allegedly done. I therefore request it be reversed.Landed little marsdon (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Making assumptions of bad faith doesn't exactly help your appeal. PhilKnight (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

request removal of topic ban[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Given that on his talk page Jehochman has dredged up the long settled "sockpuppet of everyone" allegations in response to my request for an explanation of his action, I request that the completely over the top action be reversed. I am not a sockpuppet of anyone and this through the back door revenge ban for what has happened to scienceapologist is really out of order. I mean, Utrecht university is a major world university, as is Edinburgh, and both have/had parapsychology units. Can that factual information really be so out there as to warrant a lifetime topic can from the topic of my main interest. I feel there is no justification for this action or anything like it.Landed little marsdon (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been cherry picking facts to support a point of view that you apparently favor. You were previously warned on several occasions, yet you continue to argue that your editing has been faultless. This is not a moral judgment at all. Simply put, for whatever reasons, you wear blinders with respect to this topic and refuse to listen to advice. As has been noticed by at least two administrators (myself and Elonka), your editing patterns don't match the typical new user, and you have been focusing exclusively on one highly dispute-ridden area of the encyclopedia. These last two are not determinative factors, but they most certainly weigh in the decision I have made, which is well within administrator discretion and the directives set forth by ArbCom. Your continued disputation on this thread benefits neither you nor Wikipedia. Good evening, Jehochman Talk 23:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
What warnings? I, like everyone else (although I didn't start throwing about accusations of nazism as a result), was notified of the arbitration case on pseudoscience. But, as was made plain at the time, that was not a warning nor even a comment about conduct but merely standard procedure.
Your other point defies belief. I have added numerous points to the introduction of an article, almost all of which are dealt with in the article proper and all of which can be backed by numerous reliable sources. I charge you to find more than one edit I have made that is not obviously true and able to be reliably sourced to sources in the article or discussed on the talk page. That all have been mainly from one perspective only shows that the article is lacking balance from that perspective. And that all have been criticized by someone like scienceapologist proves nothing since he has had to be banned for outrageous disruption and attacks conducted, it seems, over many years and facilitated by admins like yourself who have stepped in to unblock him previously, thus reinforcing his view that he could do as he pleased and creating the situation that has arisen with his ban. That you should ease your conscience, or appease his supporters by sacrificing me is quite disgraceful.Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
No! You have 73 content edits, mostly Parapsychology related. Jehochman's decision to topic ban you is very reasonable, as you are focused entirely on a very problematic topic area. You need to diversify. If you need ideas on how to outlive a topic ban like this one, yet stay interested, email me. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have no problem if the ban was just from that article for a time but that topic area: ufos, cryptozoology, psi is my primary area of interest and I have no real expertise in many other areas except those relating to my professional life and i deal with that all day. I ask again, where are the problem edits that necessitate a total subject area ban. Compared with the outrageous stuff i've seen that has gone unchecked from a different perspective it's hard to believe that any kind of case could be made under which this would look fair. Landed little marsdon (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm very concerned about a total topic ban on an editor merely because of apparent POV and being an SPA. I have not reviewed the editor's work, but a total topic ban, not allowing even Talk page suggestions, does seem out of line without better justification, such as edit warring, incivility, or true tendentious debate, not merely the assertion of a POV in Talk. --Abd (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
A topic ban now will greatly improve the chances of this editor surviving in troubled waters. If you want evidence of a problem, see here and notice no mention of a current survey despite constant requests and Landed little marsdon making eight posts. The evidence should have come in the second or third post. That type of discussion is a waste of time for other contributors. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Lol, crime of the century. And the source is even in the article the whole time (!!!) and is no older than some sources being used for current anti parapsychology views. Double standards and moving goalposts that i have to bend over backwards to address while others have free rein.Landed little marsdon (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You were asked multiple times to cite a RS. You didnt. Even now you dont say which RS you are referring to. In this topical area, that is a problem. That creates tension and wastes precious time of all involved, including yourself. Dont take the topic ban personally, ... it can be lifted without drama by spending a month or two productively editing other areas of the project. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've cited it ad nauseum. It's the survey cited in the article. The survey of 1100 college professors. The one published in new scientist. Are you seriously claiming that i need to do more than this. Wtf would you like.Landed little marsdon (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

LLM, you can write biographies about important people in the PSI field, both for and against. You can write about journals that do accept articles related to PSI. You can write about old studies of unexplained phenomenon, and go over to Wikisource and transcribe original journal articles from the 1800s about the topic. There is plenty you can do. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
If we weigh the few content contributions of this account versus the sheer volume of tendentiousness, the account is a big net negative to Wikipedia. Llm, you need to change tack immediately, or else you'll be indef blocked, and we'll also indef block any new accounts that show up in the same places pushing the same agenda. (Abd, please check the facts fully before commenting further.) Jehochman Talk 01:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a completely ridiculous and unsourced edit pushing an outrageous pov far far worse than anything i've done. I look forward to the topic ban which demonstrates that my conspiracy theory that these bans are being used to manipulate content is merely a fantasy. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parapsychology&diff=255930313&oldid=255274376Landed little marsdon (talk)

A topic ban is entirely reasonable, and even lenient, given this account's history and the various probations in effect. If this project took its stated goals and policies seriously, this thread would have ended a few posts ago with an indefinite block. I suppose it serves some sort of social purpose to entertain this sort of thing, though. Carry on. MastCell Talk 01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman and mastcell make great play of my net detriment to the project. A cursory glance at my contribs would reveal that i played a significant part in the resolution of the naming problem on the list of pseudosciences article. That is, in only a few weeks i helped bring about a solution to a problem that seems to have been going for several years. But don't worry, never let something so mundane as the truth interfere with the stories you need to tell yourselves to justify your action.Landed little marsdon (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been editing alongside LLM for a while now, and I'm sorry to say that this topic ban is justified based on that account's pattern of editing. LLM and ScienceApologist, whose topic ban I consider equally justified, are two sides of the same coin. Both have a pattern of making edits that promote a point of view, without inadequate sourcing. Both have a disruptive influence on talk pages, where they propound their own unique interpretations of policy and guidelines that happen to suit their purposes. Both are subject to flurries of poor editing when confronted with statements that seem to contradict their positions - most recently in opposition to each other in an edit war on Parapsychology. The only difference is, LLM's edits promote fringe science, and SA's attack fringe science. I'd much rather see both editors learn to follow WP:NPOV and to help to promote a constructive editing environment. But in the absence of that, the present approach of blocking/banning seems the only option available to the admins. The only concern I would note is that SA has not been banned from editing talk pages, whereas it sounds like LLM has been. It would be good to see more consistency there. I would be happy to see LLM able to edit talk pages. If LLM can present solid reasoning on talk pages based on reliable sources and the relevant policies and guidelines, I for one would be happy to make suggested edits, just as I am with SA, and I imagine many other editors would be too. Apologies if I'm commenting out of place here, I'm new to this page and happy to refactor if I have the protocol wrong. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

At WP:RFAR the arbitrators are currently voting whether to ban SA for three months, followed by a six month topic ban. We should see what they decide. Jehochman Talk 05:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Why not push the talk page issue into the future a little. If LLM puts some effort into editing other topical areas, we can reconsider the talk page ban. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I think John Vandenberg's suggestion is a good idea. We can revisit this in a week or so, and if there has been a pattern of constructive editing, the talk page ban could be reconsidered. PhilKnight (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cerejota on Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You will need to file this properly if you want some action taken on it. Kevin (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In this edit user:Cerejota calls Brewcrewer a "dick" [108]. It seems to me that, at minimum, Cerejota needs to be cautioned for resorting to personal insults of the talk page of on article under Arbitration enforcement. In this context such language is inflammatory. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There are instructions on how to use this page at the top. You should read them. Avruch T 00:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apparent complete failure to speak Bureaucrat [109] effectively on my part. Sorry, but I can't do it, and apparently lack the capacity. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Block of Dabomb87 by Jehochman[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jehochman has blocked Dabomb87 for 24 hours. I asked him here to explain the rationale for the block. It is my understanding (which may be in error) that the block is because Dabomb87 made a single edit involving de-linking. It is also my understanding that the parties to the ArbCom are currently enjoined from mass de-linking. Jehochman explained on his talk page that he “will not tolerate badgering from multiple parties every time I try to enforce the rules.” He further instructed interested parties to come here to discuss any concerns. Ergo my question: what rule? Shouldn’t he cite the rule he is enforcing? As I am not aware of a new rule further enjoining the parties from any linking or delinking, the original injunction applies. And in that injunction, the term “mass delinking” meant—and still means—bot delinking or manual delinking in similar quantities. If Dabomb87 really made a single edit (an assumption), then what rule does Jehochman think he is enforcing? Greg L (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to express any opinion of the block, but WP:AN/I is the best place to secure wider administrator input, especially if you are seeking a review of Jehochman's block. Jehochman has already explained his reasoning, and the blocked party is yet to put up an unblock request. There's no need for another AE thread, but repost on AN/I if you must. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
This was bad advice. Please think about the process. Arbitration is the final stop in dispute resolution. Afterwards, things come to this board. If this board can't work out an issue, it goes back to ArbCom, not WP:DRAMA. Jehochman Talk 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
J, let it go. WP:AN/I is the place if you seek wider review of any controversial blocks, AE or not. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ScienceApologist abusively editing his Talk page.[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[110]. This isn't the first comment he's removed that contained relevant evidence about his behavior, which is important because substantial segments of the community, as was apparently planned, believe that SA was blocked for merely making spelling corrections; here, though, he selectively edits my Talk comment to make it into an insult, and the edit summary is likewise gratuitously pugnacious, (removing comments by a user who ought to be banned.) Previously, he removed another comment as soapboxing, but left response to that comment standing. I've been blocked, I know what it's like, and if I had behaved like this, attacking other editors from my Talk page instead of dealing with allowed business, I'd have fully expected to become unable to edit my Talk page. I conclude that is exactly what he expects, and I also conclude that we should oblige him, his block should be extended, even in advance of the pending decision, and probably the page should be blanked as a courtesy, and protected, to prevent further disruption and distraction. This is certainly not the outcome I sought.

(Editors can normally remove material from their own Talk page, but not to distort the meaning of a comment, but this right also may become somewhat restricted when it comes to material relating to the block. I know that when I attempted to simply refactor my Talk page while I was blocked, so that I could edit in a section without constantly running into edit conflicts, I was restricted as not having the right to do that. I've seen removal of material by blocked editors reverted many times. But, then again, I and they are not ScienceApologist.)

I brought this here because it relates to the restrictions on SA. --Abd (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be for you to distance yourself from SA and problems associated with him; they are being handled by a number of administrators and the arbitration committee, and his page is monitored by a large number of people with diverse points of view. If your comments are not helping, and he is editing and removing them, then you should stop commenting (as you noted you would do). Avruch T 03:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The page has been re-factored and the material in question removed. Is this complaint still necessary? Ronnotel (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't a complaint, it was a notice. SA continues to be quite uncivil. If that is not a violation of his restrictions, no, there would be nothing more to do. For myself, WP:DGAF. The blanking of his page removes any immediate necessity, and it looks like the AC is going to block him, it would take a miracle to stop it now, so closing this seems like the best action to me. --Abd (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Xiutwel and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories[edit]

Xiutwel has been permanently banned from 9/11 related pages (diff and sanction log). Earlier today he made an edit to the article on Zeitgeist, the Movie, a documentary noted for its advocacy of 9/11 conspiracy theories. I request that an appropriate sanction be enacted. Skinwalker (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • My edit had nothing to do with 9/11; in fact the ref I provided also states that the filmmaker has moved away from that subject. So I am respecting Chetblong's decision for the topic ban.  — Xiutwel(msg) 22:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
No, please don't. That will just chase him over to AIDS denialism, where he's arguing that an unpublished document hosted on an obscure AIDS-denialist website is sufficient sourcing to badmouth a living person ([111]). MastCell Talk 05:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Editwarring over whether to merge Orthomolecular psychiatry with Orthomolecular medicine[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On Ronnotel's recommendation, I'm continuing here a discussion from WP:AN/I#Orthomolecular psychiatry and Orthomolecular medicine.

First of all, I wish to thank and commend OrangeMarlin for collaboratively accepting the result of the RfC and discussion and beginning the difficult work of actually editing the article, which I hope to find time to participate in this weekend.

This dispute over article versus redirect at Orthomolecular psychiatry has involved several bouts of editwarring, necessitating page protection March 2–11. There was a discussion and an RfC, closed by uninvolved admin Ruslik, who further clarified that close here. Given the current situation, unless there is a further discussion (but see link 1A) involving merge tags, sufficient time (e.g. 5 days) and a clear consensus (e.g. acknowledged by all participants or closed by an uninvolved admin etc., not declared by one side over the objections of the other side), I consider converting the article to a redirect under current conditions to be disruptive; I expand on that in my last paragraph here: 1A.

I disagree with Keepcalmandcarryon's argument that there was an established merge. ScienceApologist tried to redirect the page in November, but was reverted a total of 3 times by 2 other editors. It then stayed in article form until February, indicating wiki-consensus for article form; no such wiki-consensus has been demonstrated for a redirect; any redirects have been reverted in less than 24 hours except when the page was protected. The discussion (before the RfC) which Keepcalmandcarryon is using to attempt to justify a redirect took place with no merge tags on the articles as far as I'm aware, started (except for comments in November) on 27 or 28 February; Keepcalmandcarryon redirected the page on 1 March and was reverted; remember that February has only 28 days. That discussion included clearly expressed opposition to, as well as support for, the merge, and all of the participants there also participated in the later discussion mentioned by Ruslik in the RfC close.

Note that Ruslik's close did not merely state "no consensus for merge" (uninvolved editors), but also stated "the results of the above discussion are clearly against the merge" (involved editors).

I'm bringing this here because editwarring over whether to redirect the page or not is continuing, and because Keepcalmandcarryon is continuing to argue at the AN/I discussion that redirecting the article is appropriate, even after the close by an uninvolved admin. Both Verbal and Keepcalmandcarryon have redirected the page (Orthomolecular psychiatry) after that close, after the further clarification by the closer, and after my warning in link 1A that I would consider such behaviour disruptive.

I call on all participants to accept the result of the RfC and discussion as closed by an uninvolved administrator and to use established discussion fora rather than editwarring if they wish to continue to pursue the idea of merging the articles. I would appreciate decisive statements by AE administrators to help ensure that this situation is resolved by discussion in appropriate fora rather than by editwarring. (involved editor) Coppertwig (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggested that this be brought here from AN/I because I believe one or more recent ArbCom decisions may apply in this situation. Since I'm not too familiar myself, I figured this board would have the best collective experience to judge. Ronnotel (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
This issue does not belong on this page and should be continued in the discussion at WP:ANI. The article is not really privy to discretionary arbitration sanctions (it's a fringe science, not a pseudoscience). ANI is the proper place. II | (t - c) 18:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science: "Editors in the disputed area are encouraged to seek to engage in formal mediation to help establish consensus when coverage of fringe science in an article or group of articles is under dispute. While mediation is not binding, editors are further encouraged to abide by the results of mediation (and other dispute resolution)." Coppertwig (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
So open a case at WP:MEDCAB. This is not MEDCAB. However, the side wanting it merged has already indicated that they aren't interested in mediation. II | (t - c) 18:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
MEDCAB is not formal mediation; but the RfC which already took place is "other dispute resolution" as mentioned in the quote I just gave. The fringe science case also says "All editors in the disputed area are warned that further disruptive editing in the disputed area will be viewed dimly by the Committee, and may lead to further sanctions being imposed." However, I realize that it may (or may not) have been a mistake for me to move this discussion here. If so, I apologize. If someone sees fit to move it back, (leaving a link to here because my comment above is part of that discussion), or to move it elsewhere, I won't object. Coppertwig (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved back by II to the original AN/I thread. Coppertwig (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  • An arbitration enforcement request takes the form of "User:X has violated sanction Y of case Z. [diff][diff]...[diff]." This thread is not an arbitration enforcement request. Please do not engage in forum shopping. Take your content dispute to mediation or another acceptable form of dispute resolution, or reformulate your request according to the above form. Note that Y must be a sanction that has an enforcement provision, not simply a finding of fact or principal. Jehochman Talk 19:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Balkanian`s word[edit]

I had to press a few emergency buttons today on Balkanian`s word (talk · contribs) and an IP user (today at 85.74.200.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who were wildly edit-warring on two pages in parallel. Please see follow-up discussion with both users on their talk pages. I slapped a revert limitation on the IP user (coupled with an injunction to edit only logged-in in future), and I would like to see the same revert limitation on B.w., as he has shown a rather persistent tendency to revert-war. Recognising I'm probably too "involved" content-wise with him, I'd like to bring this proposal here for review. My suggestion would be 1rv/24, coupled with an injunction I like to use in such cases: every revert to be preceded by explanation on talk, and waiting period of 3 hours between explanation and revert to allow for prior discussion. All to be logged under WP:ARBMAC. Thoughts? Fut.Perf. 16:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I want just to give my opinion of Futs request. I reverted at first place [112] as a clear vandalism, as it removed well-source material, without an explanation. But, this was reverted again from the anon, again without explanation, although on that page, there is a clear consensus that Souliotes are Cham Albanians, as there is in Talk:Souliotes too. After I was reverted for the first time I assumed good faith and explained to the anon that he was doing disruptive edits, and that there is a consensus about the material he removed. Also, I asked him to discuss, and not to revert, with no response. As wiki guides I did not insult him, and asked him to discuss, and when this was not done by the anon, I realized that there was no problem of understanding of wiki, but just unwillingness to discuss. So, as he was removing significant parts of a page's content without any reason, which may be shown in the revert (5,000 bytes), and the edit summary were frivolous, as they were based only on say-sos, I continiued reverting him as a clear case of vandalism, and told an administrator, Fut. in this case, about the situation. So, I do not agree that I was edit-warring, as I took all steps needed to explain that what he was doing was not contributive. As fut, points I have been edit-warring (with anons, or not) three times during the past days on pages like Greeks in Albania and Souliotes, but what he fails to say, is that I (an disruptive user?) and other users have reached a consensus on all of them. As such, I see no need of limitation, as I really do not intent to revert pages, if vandalism does not occure, as I have not reduced pages but only expanded them till now. Thanks.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Xx236[edit]

I request a warning or remedy for Xx236 (talk · contribs). The respective cases are Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2. The area of dispute is Eastern Europe. Though not a party, Xx236 has participated in Piotrus2 and thus should know about the respective rulings and cautions.

  • Xx236 has engaged in personal attacks and assumption of bad faith on my talk [113] [114] [115] [116] and on article talk eg here and here. I warned him here. Xx236 continued his attacks against me and others.
  • Xx236 has engaged in disruptive editing by placing POV tags without outlining an NPOV violation and fact tags to sourced sentences [117], see also this tagging [118] and the reasoning [119].
  • Xx236's user page identifies Xx236 as Pole and contains a section where Xx236 "collects German language jewels". Two slurs are in German, the first "vieleicht kannst du mir helfen, ein paar polacken aufzumucken" is a (linguistically wrong) phrase containing a German curse word for Poles ("Polacken"), the second one "Kaum gestolen, schon in Polen." is a (misspelled) phrase that equals thieves and Poles. I feel like someone wants to present Germans as prejudice, the third phrase he presents in the section is about a German lady who stole her china from Poland during the war.

I find this behaviour unacceptable, harmful, and constructive discussion impossible. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've notified him of the editing restrictions. PhilKnight (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
For the record, as a Polish admin on en wiki, I've joined the discussion, and left a comment asking that user to be more civil on his talk. Hopefully that's the last time we see him on this board. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I have asked for assistance here Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Centre Against Expulsions - introduction. Xx236 (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Two phrases quoted by Skäpperöd aren't invented by me, they were written by other users on my pages in Wikipedias, I understand them as hostile to me, so I preserved them. Is there any law here demanding cancelling some texts from my page? I'm sorry but I'm not aware of it.Xx236 (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd just acknowledged I was right, moving "Expulsion after WWII" to Flight and expulsion of Germans, (BTW without any discussion). So I was right but I'm the bad guy and Skäpperöd, who misquoted and removed my edits is the good one?Xx236 (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Nobody says you are a bad guy. The charge was unacceptable and harmful behaviour in the cases outlined above and the impossibility of constructive discussion. That's a huge difference. And what has my page move to do with "you are right and I am wrong"? I just adjusted a descriptive title of another article to match the actual content of the article, because that is what descriptive titles are for - to describe the article's content. We should discuss any issues you have with this move at the article's talk, not here. You have have not been hurt by or excluded from the community, merely received a warning for your behaviour, and we should close this case and focus on improving articles now. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You have incorrectly described the goals of the Center Against Expulsions and serveral times removed my POV and fact templates. Later you have moved an article without any discussion. You have quoted Nazi propaganda, which is a crime in Poland. If you read your Arbitration enforcement demand - it's a typical ad personam attack, not a constructive debate. Now you claim you are cooperative - no, you aren't. Xx236 (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement of Eastern European disputes requested[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Lokyz blocked 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Lokyz (talk · contribs) is subject to the following remedy: "Should Lokyz make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below". I find the following comment by Lokyz, directed at me, to be quite incivil: "And are you really trying to perceive us, that your outrageous OR pretending to be peer review on a published scientific source is enough to ignore facts, just because you don't like it? ... how long this insolent removal of references, bashing scholars or simply denying the facts will continue"? That comments also builds a straw men argument accusing me of a BLP violation. As the arbitration has found such violations of NPA, AGF and overall CIV to be highly conductive to create bad editing atmoshpere, and has singled out Lokyz as one of the users responsible for making such comments, I'd like for the review of this comment and for measures to ensure that it such behavior is not repeated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, to hear about that - this is not the first time Piotrus is trying to solve content disputes over playing WP:CIV gamble. But just for the brighter light on the situation, may I suggest to look at the original statement, not the selective citation provided by my oponent. There is reference to removal of sources, and just above my comment Piotrus is giving his own opinion as peer review on a published reliable source. Furthermore, he singlehandedly dismisses it as unreliable (without citing any sources) and compares it to Soviet historiography, thus endangering credibility of the mentioned scholar. And it is by far not the first time, when Piotrus is trying to harm scholars reputation, to remove the publication as unreliable. An all this, in spite, that Piotrus is well aware of WP:BLP, because the mentioned arbcom strongly recomended to be carefull when there could be harm done to the living people. You may want to take a look on the ongoing discussion on Dubingiai massare. You may notice, that removal of sources continues for a long time, and not only in this mentioned case.
Speaking about the mentioned remedy, as far I remember there was controversy among arbitrators, whether the remedy has really passed.
And of course, Piotrus does not seem to be the most suitable administrator to ask for sanctions in this case sice he was cautioned to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent, and he is deeply involved.----Lokyz (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Sathya Sai Baba and unproductive edits[edit]

Arbcom case: Sathya Sai Baba 2

Over the last while, there have been some unproductive edits on Sathya Sai Baba. Radiantenergy (talk · contribs) did an informal poll, in which editors Andries (talk · contribs), Jayen466 (talk · contribs) agreed with him to revert from this version of the page 14 months back to a 2007 version. I, in addition to White adept (talk · contribs), disagreed with the revert, because it contained many primary sources which are at odds of principle 2 (in terms of primary sourcing), and also on the basis that Radiantenergy had made no effort to fix the perceived problems in the article space. Radiantenergy then reverted back to a 2007 revision, with an edit summary of "As per the consensus among involved editors I am reverting the article to the December 2007 version as the current version has broken many of the WP:BLP rules. Please see the talk page for details". When I then queried him/her for specific BLP violations, I received none. Then White Adept stepped in and reverted to an earlier revision. In his/her edit summary, White adept assumed bad faith: "Fixed revert by possible sock radiantenergy. You are covreing all well sourced material in favour of propaganda - absolute proaganda. I hope editors would pay attention to this."

What we need here are clear guidelines that will ensure productive editing of this article, with more experienced editors or administrators ready to kick into action when there is a conflict. At the moment we have polarized views that are being constantly removed and then placed back in to the article when reverted. There are also considerable number of single-purposed IP editors (see [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], etc) and throwaway accounts on the article (see [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], etc) so semi-protection is a consideration. Remedy 2 states that the article should seek to use better sources and citation style, which doesn't seem to be happening at the moment. Spidern 14:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Spidern - just a couple of clarifications. I reverted to the version just before radiantenergy did the revert( this version.) I just removed that water projects section - added by some IP - which obviously was completely unsourced advertisement.
Second. There absolutely was no consensus on talk for "radiantenergy" to do the revert. I point this out on talk. Also the reason why I suspect radiant energy to be a sock of banned user wikisunn I point out here: [138]
White adept (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
If you suspect a user of sockpuppeting, then the best thing to do is report them at sockpuppet investegations citing your evidence. But accusing a user of sockpuppeting in edit summaries and on an article talk page are not constructive, and does not assume good faith. Spidern 18:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
There are 5 involved users related to this article. As per consensus and only after 3 involved users agreed to revert the article was reverted to a better version. Please see this link about the consensus by involved editors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Revert_to_earlier_version. I know Wikipedia encourages editors to revert to a better version if the current article has WP:BLP. This current article had several WP:BLP issues. I had created an arbitration enforcement case here before about discussing those WP:BLP issues. Its archived. I cannot find it now or I would like to point to that link. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
This is the version of the article before you reverted. Other than undue weight, can you find any outright violations of WP:BLP? Spidern 15:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I will quickly give one very clear example. The very second paragraph accuses Sai Baba that he committed Murder though he never committed any murder. It says as follows. "Several allegations including sexual abuse, deceit, murder and financial offences surround Sathyanarayana Raju." How is killings in his ashram same as accusing him of Murder. Isn't this a clear WP:BLP violation accusing some body of commiting murder when they did not commit one based on unreliable sources?
There are other violations I need to write a detailed report. That's going to take some time. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
When we were in discussion before you reverted the page, I specifically requested that you point out all instances of improperly sourced material or any BLP violations, so that I could address them. You pointed a few instances out, but this instance was not among them. Instead, you insisted that it was too much work and that reverting would be a far better course of action. Spidern 18:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
That statement is quite well sourced I presume! These allegations are the sole reason for this person's notability in international media. The Times, The Guardian, The BBC, DTV, CBC all have reported on this. These allegations being central to the person's notability and very well sourced how is this a violation of BLP?
White adept (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I said on the Sai Baba talk page that if Radiantenergy and Andries agreed that the previous version was better, I would endorse their decision. This was based on my reading of the previous arbcom findings, rather than a detailed study of the article version to be reverted to (I am currently too busy elsewhere ;-) to devote much time to the Sai Baba article). I know from the 2006 and 2007 arbcom decisions that Andries is a committed Sai Baba opponent, while Radiantenergy seemed to be more favourably disposed towards Sai Baba. I thought if two people at opposite ends of the spectrum of opinion agree that the article has gone so pear-shaped that it is better to return to an older version, then it is most likely so. (However, I thought that the video passages recently added were probably a useful addition to the article and should be reinstated after reverting, if their copyright status works out.)

There have been two recent BLP/N threads on Sai Baba, one initiated by Spidern, and one by me. There was another BLP/N thread in January. There has been a recent RfC; RegentsPark (talk · contribs) commented that he thought there were still BLP issues. As for the socking allegations, there may be something to that, in both cases. I alerted Jehochman to them a while ago but didn't hear back. Jayen466 17:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Mere unproductive and counterproductive edits are not a clear violation of these arbcom cases. So I think this thread is off topic here. (Some edits after the arbcom case introduced factual mistakes that remained uncorrected for years and nobody seemed to care in spite of my repeated complaints on the talk page to which nobody replied.) It is clear for me that the article did not improve in any version after the latest arbcom decision. So going back to the arbcom instead of this thread seems a better idea. Andries (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Something needs to be done to the article soon. The entire section entitled 'Killings in the ashram' is full of opinion, innuendo and extraneous material (not to mention the leading title) and is obviously in violation of BLP. Anyone reading the section will be left with the impression that the sai baba was somehow culpable in the killings which is not something, whatever the actual reality may be, that has (apparently) gone beyond the level of innuendo.--RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 13:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • What is wrong with the section title "Killing in the ashram"? That sounds to me neutral and less vague than "Deaths in the ashram". Deaths in the ashram happen probably daily because there are so many people there. Andries (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
      • May be editors and admins from other projects can help in resolving the WP:BLP issues in this article. Radiantenergy (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom injunction[edit]

Hi. I've come across something that I feel was/is being done a bit surreptiously regarding birth/death templates, and after a comment from someone else regarding it, I've come to the conclusion that besides the issue of essentially misrepresenting what was supposedly a consensus, manipulating a change to the MOS and arbitrary change to biography infoboxes based on that, it also seems to me that this has violated the temporary injunction against automatically delinking dates at WP:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Temporary injunction. I outlined why I think this is effectively a violation here. I'd appreciate input and any suggestions for what steps I should take regarding what has gone on. It's been suggested to open an WP:RfC about it, but I'm not sure that is the solution for someone having manipulated and avoid process for initiating change, even though it may be unintentional, but I do think misrepresentation was involved in doing so. The editor who did this wants me to take it back to MOSNUM, although it was apparent that the original discussion wasn't so much of a discussion, much less a clear consensus, than it was a forum for him to keep pushing his idea. There were 5 or 6 persons involved and never did I see a clear consensus endorsing his templates, much less a change to the MOS or implementing what is essentially widespread change undercover. What this does by having accomplished the changes made means that unless an editor adds a special parameter to the editor's new template, there is no option for date linking to re-implemented in infobox templates without changing each one individually. Meanwhile, the older template, which applies to over 660,000 articles, can be changed back to linking by adjusting the template itself. In any case, by having slipped in this change to the MOS and infoboxes, which means the templates should be updated now, he is effectively accomplishing wide delinking in what I think is not in the spirit of the injunction. Any suggestions/help would be greatly appreciated. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked but I don't see anything that would be an injunction violation. Can you point to a recent change (provide a diff) of a date or year being delinked either directly (in an article) or indirectly (by making a change to a template)? —Locke Coletc 05:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The new date templates {{birth-date}} and {{death-date}} that Wildhartlivie mentions neither link nor delink. As I have stated frequently in multiple venues, I have no opinion either way on the link delink or autoformatting issues. I have been adding the new date templates to articles that were not using a birth or death template and my practice has been that if the article used a date link for the birth or death date then when adding the new templates, I leave the date link as it was, using the right hand parameter of the templates as described in the docs. If it had no date link, I don't add one. Here are representative examples:
  1. retain link: [139]
  2. No link before, no link after[140].
I believe a review of my edits will reveal that I am neither adding nor deleting links. My interest in date and event templates has solely to do with improving microformat (metadata) support in wikipedia. -J JMesserly (talk) 06:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the issue is a little more complex and subtle than whether something is being linked or delinked. It isn't whether actual linking or delinking is occurring, but whether the changed template allows for linking should that be the outcome of the arbcom case. The template that has been in use for 2 1/2 years can be changed easily at the template itself and would take effect immediately on all articles using that template. The new one J JMesserly is using does not automatically allow for linking to be re-implemented, as he said, unless an additional parameter in the template is used which the user must add to link the date. Presently, if the linking parameter is used, then effectively, dates are being linked. If it is not used, linking cannot be used regardless of the outcome. In that, using the template effectively violates the spirit of the injunction against linking as I understand it. It doesn't really matter about an opinion on datelinking, what seems to me to matter in regard to the injunction is the effect of a change. Without going through extensive history searches, I can offer one example in which J JMesserly has inserted the new template in at least one article here that does not use the datelinking parameter. Datelinking could not be implemented on that article without making manual edits to the template in the article, which I don't believe can be determined without checking each article individually. That this template has already been incorporated into the MOSNUM, implements and effectively mandates the use of the new template, which includes extended and additional date linking instructions, on a wholesale basis, is what I think may violate the arbcom injunction in practice, if not in word. How this change came about is an entirely different matter and where that should be discussed is something different, and I have been trying to determine where that should be. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The basis of the objection seems to be that Wildhartlivie believes that autolinking could not be added to the new template as it could be added back to the old template. This is factually incorrect. If the community desired autolinking as was done in the old template, it is as trivial to add it into the new as the old and I have said as much in prior postings. -J JMesserly (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
This is not about an objection about what I feel was your misrepresentation of a consensus to change the MOS. This is bringing up a concern, based on your representation of the new template and what one would do to implement date linking. Your comments prior to today have said the new template would use an additional parameter to each and every template in use in order for it to date link.[141] That is the sum total objective of my posting here: that the template, as you've explained it prior to today, cannot implement date linking without additions to each template. Please don't muddle this concern - not an objection, a concern - with other issues. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Not prior to today. I have said it all along. "Date linking (aka "user preference date formatting") could be trivially restored to both the old and new template families if the community reversed its decision on that matter."[142] -J JMesserly (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


Enforcement of the second remedy of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Report isn't actionable - suggest opening a discussion on the admin noticeboard. PhilKnight (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ever since the March 2008 Episodes and Characters 2 discussion, we have sought to come to some consensus on fictional elements and notability on WP. For various reasons the efforts have failed but not due to disruption, but more narrowing and narrowing the problem. We've had two RFCs to see about a version of WP:FICT and two additional RFCs to assert the nature of WP:N. We're still working at it, though now seems to be a matter of finer points. It's still a struggle, but I think we're a lot farther along than a year ago.

That said: a recent effect to discuss the merging of South Park articles (certain not in a fait accompli approach that TTN was warned about) has exploded again at Talk:List of South Park episodes, spreading to Wikipedia talk:Television episodes and WT:N. While it should be assumed that all editors (uninvolved or not) should be aware of the second remedy, involved editors need to be aware they should not be arising any issues, per The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. If you read these disputed pages, it is clear that User:Pixelface is treading the boundards on this, as the user refuses to compromise to a solution instead insisting that certain guidelines are invalid despite their recent confirmation of acceptance; there may be others that are also inflaming the situation but they are not listed in the involved parties, thus a warning there may be appropriate.

This is further evidenced that during this past year, Pixelface has been a subject of one Wikiquette alert (Disclaimer: I was the one that issued this in regards to their combative responses during a FICT RFC), and a Request for comment (Disclaimer: Again, I initiated that RFC/U, thought that was prompted by an WP:ANI suggestion to disruptive editing) which was closed with no significant resolution. As a result of this latest discussion, another Wikiquette alert has been issued based on his incivility to other editors. Now, one consideration that came up during the RFC/U on Pixelface was the issue of other editors baiting him into such behavior, which obviously should not happen. That said, Pixelface's responses certainly are not merited based on the input of those he replies to.

While Pixeface can provide valuable input, the approach he is taken of late is not appropriate for any such discussion, and some type of action seems to be needed to reign in this behavior as to allow a more rationale discussion towards consensus, as the previous WQA and RFC/U have not changed things. If Pixelface is refusing to move from his position and will not compromise, then this is a clear violation of the ArbCom decision and action needs to be taken.

I would think it would be worthwhile to validate if any of the other participants of the E&C case are in similar violations, but of those listed, the only one that seems to be involved actively is User:Collectonian, and I don't see any signs of incivility. And it would also be worthwhile to evaluate non-involved editors as well, and issue any warnings per the ArbCom decision. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • It must be noted that Masem's complaint here about one editor is simply an indicator of a far greater and ongoing problem, as even Masem points out that Pixleface has not violated the instructions at E&C2, simply from Masem's POV as approching the edge. Certainly Pixleface would see the exact opposite, as he has quite honestly pointed out that 9 editors are acting upon a non-existent guideline (the failed WP:FICT) against the consensus of over 1000 editors (2017 accounts total) whose actions and edits have created the consensus for inclusion of the informations now being dismissed as not required in a paperless encyclopedia, and that THAT is in vilation of E&C2 as well. Apparently the complaint boils down to "Pixleface is the most vocal", which then makes him the recipient of Masem's attention." Ikip (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • When you say "If Pixelface is refusing to move from his position and will not compromise", what does that mean exactly? Many editors say "hey, we want to delete everything. Alright, you won't let us get away with that this time, so compromise, and let us delete everything, but we'll call it a merge. Everything will be deleted, but you'll have the history still preserved. Or at least compromise and let us delete some articles." That's how it is whenever I see people talking about compromising usually. Was it something like that, or does he have another position you think he should compromise. Dream Focus 15:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The 9 editors are trying to find a solution that allows for fiction to be considered notable in a manner that doesn't require the stricter standard of WP:N, which less than a month ago has been affirmed as still having consensus as a guideline. PF has been looking at every historical aspect of the related guidelines and policies (which, mind you, is useful to consider) and trying to invalid these guidelines, including WP:N, because of things never having consensus in the past, despite the fact that they enjoy consensus now. There's also bad faith allegations of any attempt to talk about transwiki'ing information as being to the monetary benefit of Jimmy Wales due to his involvement at Wikia, yet in the same discussion, PF will point to Jimmy's original statement 7 years ago that every television could have an article in describing the not-paper aspect as evidence for allowing any article on any episode. This is not compromising. A compromise means that both sides need to give up ideals in order to make WP function properly, and PF's continued restatements of these issues do not show any attempt beyond "my way or the highway" compromising. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The general problem is that we still do not have a working consensus, despite much discussion. Masem seems every bit as uncompromising as Pixelface and it might equally be said that removal of him from the scene would help us forward. But attacks upon particular editors are not helpful as they both represent numerous other editors with similar views. The outcome is that we have multiple approaches to this and sporadic warring at the boundaries between them. If a uniform solution to this is desired then it seems that it needs to come from an editorial board of some sort as a bottom-up approach seems unlikely to produce a clear result. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pixelface has so far been smart enough to not overstep the trolling line in an objective, and arbcom will not hold him accountable to the remedy until he does shown signs of having become a WP:MAJORDICK. Enough people have certified in the RFC/U that PF's edit-warring on policy and guideline pages would cause him major trouble soon if he keeps it up, and I guess PF took it to heart since he hasn't gone beyond 1RR there since. For anything else (i.e. talkpages), editors are free to plonk him. Some editors may still feel that PF is being disruptive, but he can't do much harm on talkpages. – sgeureka tc 17:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • As I stated, there's no reason not to evaluate all the actions of any involved editor here, but PF is the only active one that is listed as an involved party at E&C2. Other editors include myself, I've no problem putting my actions on the table as I believe I've been trying to find the compromise position between PF and other inclusionists and those that want strict adherence to notability standards for the past two years. I could care less exactly how fiction notability comes out in the end, I just want a solution that people can agree to and matches current behavior. I'm not trying to discredit PF's views, but he repeats the same message over and over, attacks historical reasons for why policies and guidelines that currently enjoy consensus should have never had it and without providing any strong reasoning why today they should not be consensus, and has responses that are aggressive and almost beg for a heated response. Regardless of anything else, this last reason, including his personal attacks per the second WQA and the RFC/U, make nearly any heated discussion with PF a battleground, which, per the ArbCom resolution, should not be tolerated. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • If there were a general consensus about these matters already then we wouldn't have the problem. Part of the trouble is that putative policies and guidelines such as WP:PLOT and WP:FICTION are not accepted or followed. Editors who favour the current wording of these texts naturally defend them against changes but this does not mean that they represent a true consensus. WP:NOTLAW tells us that policies and guidelines should follow from actual consensus and practise which is established in the field. Since the actual outcomes and practices are varied and disputed, we do not have a good foundation for these guidelines and so it goes. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters there aren't any actionable remedies, and in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 the only actionable remedy is in relation to TTN, so this report should be closed. Obviously, this could be raised on WP:ANI, and PF could be blocked, however this discussion isn't appropriate for WP:AE. PhilKnight (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I will note that PF has been reported (not for editing style but for approaching 3RR on policy/guideline pages) to ANI a few times in the past, with the last time resulting in the RFC/U per admin advise. Another ANI would seem futile. Is the next step a ArbCom request for clarification or a new case, if this is not the proper channel? --MASEM (t) 16:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Arbcom has so far refrained from sanctioning fiction editors if they didn't clearly violate a policy (except TTN once), so it's doubtful that they will sanction PF when there is only subjective evidence against him. You likely won't get clarification from arbcom either as they only had inactionable remedies here. I've often seen requests for topic bans at AN though (if that's what you want) when an experienced editor has strained the good will of others for a prolonged period of time, so AN may be preferable over Arbcom in this case. – sgeureka tc 17:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with and second PhilKnight that Pixelface has not violated the arbcom case and that this thread should be closed. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Dismas[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
As noted above This page only involves violations of final ArbCom decisions, which this is not. The user breached the injunction...apparently as he thought it was so far in the past, had the error pointed out, stopped. This appears resolved but should have been at WP:AN/I regardless - Peripitus (Talk) 11:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Violation of temporary injunction in the Date delinking arbitration case. Diffs follow:

Dismas (talk · contribs) was previously warned of this injunction and has continued to delink dates despite this (this is just a sampling of what I found in the contribs, there may be more). —Locke Coletc 15:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That was two months ago. No decision has been reached on this yet?!
Okay, that aside... I'll stop. I would have stopped delinking if someone had pointed out that this issue was still undecided on my talk page. Why go to the lengths of starting an arbitration case when a simple note on my talk page would have sufficed? And if linking for the sake of autoformatting isn't policy, then why is it still pointed out on MOS:DATE?
Locke Cole, next time you go squirrel hunting, please don't take an elephant gun. Dismas|(talk) 21:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Locke Cole is not "starting an arbitration case". He is merely asking for enforcement of the existing injunction, which you apparently knew about and ignored. I wonder why.... Tennis expert (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

To keep people from running afoul of this injunction perhaps it would be best if an administrator blanked User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js and protected it? There's no use for this script other than to violate this injunction. —Locke Coletc 02:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Locke, this is probably something you want to propose as a motion at the RFAR, since blanking a page isn't part of the injunction and there is no policy saying Lightmouse can't put a script in his userspace, just an injunction saying people can't do a thing that script does in a certain manner. MBisanz talk 02:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The only purpose of the script is to violate the injunction. I'd rather not bother ArbCom with this if we can reach an agreement here that it serves only as a way for people to accidentally violate this injunction. —Locke Coletc 05:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Not really; if the dates are already unlinked, users can can use the script to make the date formats consistent. See this question and this answer. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Dabomb87; it can be used without violating the injunction, such as by GA and FA editors bringing a candidate into line with the criteria they have agreed upon.
See here for where I mused about this. I think it would be helpful if the script notifies editors of the injunction, with the notice disabled by a configuration value that the editor must consciously set (I guess the script could automatically edit monobook.js at the users request...self-modifying javascript...eww)
John Vandenberg (chat) 15:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
If this is okay, can someone modify the script to emit this notification of the injunction as John suggests? I can probably supply code if an administrator is willing to do this. —Locke Coletc 11:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Discretionary sanctions requested[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think these discretionary sanctions should be applied to Russavia (talk · contribs) as he continue attacking other editors. A month ago he said the following:

"You are an Estonian editor who hates Russia and are here to help advocate your hate-filled POV on those subjects.....You are a nobody, and as a nobody people could care less what your opinions on anything....Digwuren if you don't like it, then don't let your ass hit the door on the way out, because your stalking, your removal of information without edit summaries is unacceptable, and I will continue to argue for their inclusion with editors who aren't harrassing me such as yourself"
Please see this diff

He has been warned after this incident. However, he continue doing precisely the same. He declares others to be "serial stalkers", he declares arguments by others to be "bullshit", "civility be damn". He tells to another user (Your reasons) are "utter bullshit", and so on.

Today, he makes personal offenses again. In the last diff he again calls Digwuren "nobody", although he replies to a completely different question asked by another user. Please note that Russavia was already listed in these sanctions for harassment. Biophys (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of these conversations were on his own talk page, and this is not violating WP:NPA. If a user is getting overheated, the civil thing to do is leave them alone on their own talk page, not continue posting in order to provoke an outburst that can then be reported at WP:AE. It looks like a user has lost his cool after been pressed (or trolled). Jehochman Talk 09:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
No. WP:CIV policy applies to all editing on Wikipedia, including user pages, talk pages, edit summaries, and any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians.. In the last diff Russavia tells: "Gamsakhurdia, the racist/xenophobic first president of Georgia recognised the terrorist state ... Digwuren is simply clutching at straws, and is attempting to push upon WP his nobody definition". If you believe this is an appropriate way to debate issues, I am sorry.Biophys (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I clearly asked Digwuren and Martintg to stay away from my talk page. This was ignored by Digwuren who continued to troll, and was also ignored by Martintg who also continued to troll. They keep pushing and pushing and pushing and trolling and trolling and trolling, what exactly kind of response does one think they are going to get. And Biophys joined in on the harrassment/trolling as well (except Biophys admitted his stalking). What exactly does one have to do around here to get it thru people's skulls? And then there's this continued discussion on Digwuren's talk page - people are more than welcome to discuss my edits here on WP, but the constant accusations of meatpuppetry by Biophys are not helping, particularly after he was shown to have been so far off base it wasn't funny, and even when you he was shown wrong he still continued (note, I had to demand that CU be done in that case, and the admin obviously saw that the only way to stop the constant egregious accusations was to do what I asked). PLEASE, will someone make this rubbish stop!!!! I'm here to help create encyclopaedic content, not to be the subject and target of Biophys' and other editors delusions or whatever.

And I will say right here, right now, I could not care one iota if people have a problem with me uploading and utilising photos from Kremlin.ru (this is being discussed on Digwuren's talk page at the link just above) -- it is the right of editors to hate Putin and Medvedev, hey it's even the right of editors to believe that Putin's a paedophile and the like (as much as I think that says a lot about people who think it), but here on WP I don't care one bit what your POV is, because your POV is meaningless; it's the POV of reliable sources that matters. Yes, I managed to get permission to use a fantastic resource, and yes, I have uploaded thousands of photos. There is not a single reason that these photos should not be uploaded, we have the permission to use them, and by making them available on Commons, and categorised the way I have done it, this resource is readily available to the entire internet community, not just English Wikipedia; and if people don't like it, then ignore it, is it hurting you one little bit? But because one is interested in helping to develop this project, which is worth it (the egregious harrassment is not though!), I have all types of accusations levelled against me. And I don't care that Biophys (or anyone else for that matter) finds Koni (dog) hard to swallow, I'm not here to engage in advocacy or to please other editors, but this is just one of my DYKs, and this particular one was obviously interesting enough that it was the 8th most popular DYK in December 2008 with some 14,500 views. And you know what? There's not a fact tag in sight (everything I add to WP articles is meticulously sourced), there's no POV pushing (hell, I even included what I think are ridiculous claims from Russian opposition members, but did so in the interest of NPOV), etc, and people find it hard to swallow? The only thing I have to say about that is GOOD! Because this is how articles are supposed to be written; coherent prose, fully sourced, NPOV. And yes, this article wasn't something I thought of creating if it weren't for me finding photos from Kremlin.ru and noticing several of them amongst my uploads. Here is an instance that my uploading of photos to Commons has resulted in my writing an article and the project is better off for it; I challenge my detractors to find an uninvolved editor who would say otherwise. For an example of another instance, here's a work in progress which was started by myself due to myself uploading a photo of Lyudmila Putina; ask anyone who grew up in Eastern Europe if they know this guy, they will likely answer yes, and we don't have an article yet on him...but I am changing that shortly. It irks me to no end that I need to explain my existence on this project to the community based upon wishful thinking of a small group of editors who are, and should be, worried that my presence brings a degree of rationality to the project, and that often I have to explain every single edit (in which one editor calls "debate", like we are a debating society, and the best arguer wins) due to severe article ownership issues.

Also, note, Colchicum who has a lot to say at Digwuren's talk page, has referred to myself as RuSSavia (SS anyone? I sure hope that Colchicum isn't calling me a Nazi or accusing me of harbouring Nazi sympathies) on a talk page at which editors had problems with User:Offliner (clearly) improving (the improvement of fringe POV articles needs to be protected at any cost!) and I asked him to refer to my username as written (the troll comment is in regards to this, the edit relates to the removal of sources of a non-reliable source without attribution.) He repeats the RuSSavia several days later on the talk page of a user who is currently blocked for edit warring and sockpuppeting. Again I asked him to stop with his trolling use of SS in my username -- I didn't run around feigning all sorts of rubbish and appealing to admins. Then on the 2008 South Ossetia war talk page Colchicum refers to HistoricWarrior007 as HystronicWanker. HistoricWarrior posts this on Colchicum's talk page, and I also post bringing to Colchicum's attention his comments to me. So, I hope that Biophys, Digwuren et al will all excuse me whilst I choke on their false sense of moral outrage, because just where is the outrage at those personal attacks by one of their pals on myself and another editor, and demands for discretionary sanctions? There is none, but funnily enough Digwuren's question is now being answered here, and what can be seen is trolling/harrassment on their part. Also especially telling is the reference to a discussion on my talk page regarding stub sorting for WP:RUSSIA -- who could have thought that stub sorting on MY TALK PAGE could also lead to more accusations and the like -- and one has to put up with this day in--day out.

I have apologised on Moreschi's talk page to Digwuren, I'm not going to do so again. What these guys are really uppity about is that Moreschi hasn't blocked me. It appears Moreschi isn't active at the moment, but if he were, I do not regard Moreschi as a neutral admin in this area. Note even Colchicum is asking where Moreschi is. I have seen Moreschi give out some justified blocks to editors, but I have also seen him give out some "iffy" ones (to other editors), and I have seen him blocking people for aggressive POV-pushing. Imagine my surprise, when I ask him to counsel two editors, one of whom expressed his desire to use a particular photo because it was the "most grotesque" (in his opinion), he fobs off the clear evidence of the article being used as a battleground to mock and disparage the subject. I've seen Moreschi indef block editors for less than that, and in this instance he is basically "So what". One editor in question has been blocked 3 times since then; twice for edit warring and once for block evasion (sockpuppetting). So I can see why they would want Moreschi's help. I don't have trust in Moreschi's ability to counsel editors in this area, let alone to block them, when he refuses to do anything about those clear battleground conditions. --Russavia Dialogue 14:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to help you, bit I can't when you are calling other editors names and using gratuitous profanity. Please show that you understand civility by refactoring your comments here and wherever else they may be. You can convey the substance of your concerns in a socially acceptable fashion. In fact, doing so will make your points stronger, rather than weaker. Meanwhile, I think we need to look into the allegations that other users have been pressuring, harassing or trolling you. Jehochman Talk 15:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I have refactored, and have added more evidence, some of which clearly shows this here is a semi-gang up attempt to get rid of me, whilst I have let uncivility towards myself in the recent past slide, which due to discussion on Digwuren's talk page right now, I am presenting here so that admins can see that there is a false sense of moral outrage from Biophys/Digwuren/et al. I still continue to work on my evidence of stalking, ownership, BLP, etc. Shame that it's coming to this though, I'd rather be doing content related things, rather then compiling all of this evidence which if they stopped when asked would not have been necessary. --Russavia Dialogue 18:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I made the following points above, with supporting diffs:
  1. R. has been previously included in the list of bans in this arbitration case for harassing another user.
  2. He made an uncivil comment about D. approximately a month ago.
  3. He has been officially warned by an uninvolved administrator for misbehavior after that.
  4. He continue making uncivil comments at different pages. If someones needs more supporting diffs, I would be happy to provide more diffs with his inappropriate comments made during the last 1-2 months, not mentioning things he did earlier. Sorry for pushing this issue. It would be fine if this only involved me. But this became an issue for others as well.
  • Rules are the same for everyone. If there is another user who made any comments like Russavia did, who was repeatedly warned and blocked for harassment and continue doing the same, the discretionary sanctions should be applied to him.Biophys (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, they aren't. See how User:Jehochman tells Russavia -- a perpetrator of continuous severe incivility -- "I'd like to help you ..." here and then turns around makes threats regarding imaginary harassment accusations ([148], [149]).
The apparent cause of this hostility is my opposition to User:Jehochman's RFA some year and a half ago (admission). I figure Martintg's unforgivable sin, in eyes of User:Jehochman, is daring to ask Jehochman about it; see how he promptly labels the whole thread "trolling". ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Assuming bad faith seems to be your style, Digwuren. Perhaps you should take a different approach. Jehochman Talk 23:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
If the complaint was not partially overblown, I might have placed some sort of restriction on Russavia. I loath my administrative services being gamed. It is clear that several editors were pressing Russavia on his own talk page, stoking the fires in an effort to get him banned. I won't be a party to that. Russavia, you need to clean up your act. If you continue to take the bait, many administrators will be happy to ban you. In addition, you have a blindspot with respect to Russian Nationalism. Don't edit war. If you are opposed by other parties over such controversies, you need to restrain yourself. Jehochman Talk 14:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I actually don't have any blindspot with respect to Russian nationalism.

Response[edit]

(o.d.) OK, this is obviously a pre-emption of a case I am in the process of filing at WP:RFA which can be seen in progress at User:Russavia/AE; head 'em off at the pass eh Biophys? There has been a systematic pattern of stalking and harrassment of edits by Biophys (subsided), but taken up by Digwuren and Martintg. To answer each of these points raised by Biophys:

  • The first point was done as the continued stalking by Digwuren was pissing me off, and was apologised for here. Of course, not a single issue I raised was answered by other editors, and was quietly dropped by said editors, however, the stalking that I requested to be stopped obviously was not. My response to the misguided admin is noted here and here.
  • Yes, I did tell another editor on my talk page that his argument was bullshit, because it was. Please note the history of the article in question. I removed a link to a Youtube video, and also a link to a website with the lyrics. And quite rightly so as WP:LINKVIO. Hapsala and Digwuren kept reverting, without an ounce of WP:AGF, claiming it's politically motivated. I placed at Talk:We Don't Wanna Put In, that these are linkvio, and yet they reverting back in claiming I'm just a POV-pushing, politically motivated editor. I also left a message on Hapsala's talk page, telling him I have better things to do than to run to an admin to report for LINKVIO, which got this response from Hapsala at User_talk:Russavia/Archive_9#Edit_warring. And yes, I did tell him his reason was bullshit, because low and behold, an editor finds a link to a NON-LINKVIO copy of the video, that I am fine with. So I want Hapsala and Digwuren sanctioned for lack of AGF, and also for repeatedly re-including links against the WP:LINKVIO policy.
  • Yes, I did say "bullshit, and civility be damned" on my talk page. In fact I said: "I'm calling utter bullshit on your claim Martintg. With you, there's the attempted speedy deletion of articles in progress in my userspace. And I don't see you or Digwuren having previously edited on ANY of the articles which you have stalked me on in the last 24 hours - those being the "list" articles, including List of official languages by state, List of countries and capitals in native languages, List of official languages. Only an absolute idiot would believe your claim. If you don't stop stalking edits and harrassment I will take it to Arbcom. This is your final warning - civility be damned, when I can't edit without editors stalking my edits, and undermining the editting process - every f'ing article I edit I have to contend with this bullshit. Enough is f'ing enough!!!!!!!!!!!" This was in direct response to Martintg: "Given the volume and breath of articles you edit, and that a very small subset of these articles intersect with the range of articles we edit, your accusations of stalking have absolutely no foundation in reality. These personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith must stop." Take a look at User:Russavia/AE for the "eSStonia" example, which on Moreschi's talk page they claim they found by a "bot", the details of which still have not been forthcoming. Also note here that Biophys (finally!!!) admits that he stalks me (look under what circumstances he makes this admission, it is hilarious!) Yes, apparently my edits are POV and are so bad that people need to stalk and hound my edits and basically just make my editing on WP a right pain in the arse, but to understand what Biophys means as POV, you have to understand Biophys' very very long history of advocacy of conspiracy theories and attack materials on WP. POV edits by myself, is removing extremely poorly claims from an article inserted by Biophys that Putin is a paedophile (a claim that Biophys himself has asserted twice he believes is true -- here [can anyone believe that a claim of a BLP being a paedophile was actually in the lead of that article!?!? If that is not advocacy, what the hell is] and one I will have to dig deep to find due to Biophys wiping his talk page instead of archiving), re-writing them in totally NPOV language, and adding critical commentary (sourced of course, as are all of my edits) calling such claims "wild and unsubstantiated". That folks, is my POV-pushing. Here's another example of my POV-pushing that Biophys saw fit to remove; of course, it is all totally relevant, and it is meticulously sourced (as my edits on WP are). And here it is again. Note, for example, in both cases "Dismissal" (a neutral term) is changed to "Persecuition" (sic). Just who is POV-pushing here? Need more? Look at the egregious ownership of articles and aggressive wholesale revision of edits by Biophys here. This is seen again and again and again, all over Wikipedia with Biophys. A look at the egregious POV-pushing of removal of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, whilst leaving Kosovo and Taiwan from articles, even though it is noted that all 4 have disputed status, is something that would be interesting to look at in terms of POV-pushing by these editors. I've suggested time and time again (since their latest round of stalking started), to include Abkhazia, Kosovo, South Ossetia and Taiwan in articles such as List of official languages by state, with a notation that their status is disputed, but the POV-pushing warriors are removing A & SO, leaving the others, based purely upon their own POV, without the slightest regard for NPOV. And I'm the POV-pusher Biophys? Get out of town. I challenge a single editor to show me where I am responsible for such egregious POV-pushing like that, that warrants my systematic stalking not by just Biophys, but by 1) Biophys, 2) Martintg and 3) Digwuren. Biophys has admitted his stalking, is a similar admission going to be forthcoming from the other 2? I won't hold my breathe. You'll also note that I asked both Digwuren and Martintg to stay away from my talk page; this was ignored.
  • As to Digwuren being a nobody, he is a nobody the same way that I am a nobody, as are most WP editors...unless Digwuren presents his credentials on international relations, he is a nobody as far as definitions go. Note Biophys, that I haven't been banned for a year because of continued and aggressive POV-pushing. You'll note on that article talk page the silly claims from another edito mentioned above that article leads can mention something in the lead briefly, only to have it expanded upon, not in the article, but again in the lead!! (All in the interest of poisoning NPOV of course - my comment). I finally got that comment after having asked 3 times for an answer. See what bullshit one has to deal with, with such editors? One asks a question, and it takes 4 or 5 attempts to get an answer (and sometimes get no answer at all as evidenced on my RFA preparation page). And one wonders why people get pissed.
  • As to being listed in on the arbcom, I am disputing this, and I want it removed POST-HASTE. At no stage when I was blocked was this Arbcom even mentioned to myself; it was not until some time later that I even became aware of this arbcom. I was blocked for 2 weeks (without being able to mount a defence) because I placed a WP:COI template on Biophys' talk page, because...well....I am not even allowed to say so, because it will be seen as WP:OUTING, which is why I was blocked (didn't matter that Biophys was caught sock-puppeting on Commons). I was at no stage blocked under those arbcom sanctions!!!!! I already have plans to raise this at RFA, mainly due to my talk page having to be wiped of my own personal identifying information due to an incorrect CU being done. If my name is not removed from this list, I will post my defence in the open, so that blind freddy can see it in all it's glory, and one will see not only way the block iffy, but that it has nothing to do with that Arbcom in the slightest.

If any admin is even going to touch this, I want the stalking looked at, I want Biophys' BLP violations sanctioned, I want Biophys' ownership of articles looked at, I want Biophys' tedious editing of articles looked, I want tedious refusal to answer questions looked at, I want the whole lot looked at, and look at the whole picture, and I've only just started with evidence here. Would you like to know more?. Because there is plenty more evidence which would be shown, which would put everything into some resemblance of perspective. --Russavia Dialogue 21:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You're asking too much of this board. To get all those things looked at, you need arbitration. Jehochman Talk 23:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep, unfortunately that is the case. But thanks for recognising that this isn't as simple as a comment on a talk page to another editor. That was just the effect; it's the cause that needs to be investigated, and Arbcom will have a "fun" time getting to the bottom of it. Cheers --Russavia Dialogue 04:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User:Digwuren[edit]

Some people might think from the above that I'm a particular target of User:Russavia. However, this is not so. For a particular example, consider this section. Russavia has unhelpfully labelled it "Martintg's POV-pushing". I do not need to tell the regular readers of this page that such titles are discouraged by the talkpage policy. It isn't a heat-of-a-moment thing, either: after removal, under the custom of WP:RPA, of the section, he restored it under a guise of "valid questioning", ironically, removing other comments in the process.

I'll try to resist the temptation to list other cases of bad temper here, but these are not isolated cases. Very unfortunate. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And instead of renaming the section, you removed the entire section relating to the question, which took 4 times to be asked before it got anything resembling a response. And yes, what I removed was you using the talk page as a forum/soapbox. Which another editor noted here, which saw you tediously remove the other editor's warning but leaving your soapboxing, which then saw the other editor completely remove your soapboxing, and this is after I removed it. So your point is? --Russavia Dialogue 13:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that both the other editor and you did not get the point Digwuren was attempting to make in discussion, which is, that "partial" should be closer to a glass half-way full, not a glass with two drops of water--a metaphor, not a "parable" and absolutely not your characterization of "soapboxing". Abkhazia and South Ossetia have minimal recognition internationally, plain and simple. Russia's is one voice among many, not 1 vote = Russia, 1 vote = everyone else, 1+1=2 = "NPOV". PetersV       TALK 20:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that pushing Abhazia and South Ossetia as sovereign entitities is a Ministry of Propaganda style thing to do. Jehochman Talk 13:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
In retrospect, "parable" was a wrong word to use. Mea culpa. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 13:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be a Ministry of Propaganda thing to do Jehochman, but I haven't pushed them as sovereign entities. What is a Ministry of Propaganda thing to do is to push that they aren't sovereign entities. And I say this because I have said to include ALL with notation, and the users above are pushing their POV and removing. We cover ALL POV and let our readers decide, and not in the Faux News way that these editors are doing. --Russavia Dialogue 14:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply by Biophys[edit]

Russavia only confirms his bad demeanor by blaming others and me of something that we never did. I never followed his edits with the purpose to create disruption or to harass him (that is what "wikistalking" means). To the contrary, I politely debated all issues with him in a hope that Russavia can change his behavior - like here yesterday. Unfortunately, this did not happen.Biophys (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It is uncivil to post a superficially polite comment on a user's talk page when you know that comment is likely to upset them. Next time something like this happens, file a report at WP:WQA and let an uninvolved party help with difficult communications. It takes two to fight. If you disengage, there is no fight. Jehochman Talk 09:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, I got your message: no communications with this user. I am not sure why you are talking about "two". Obviously, five or more users are involved, based on my diffs alone. Thank you for the comment.Biophys (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
^two^at least two. Jehochman Talk 19:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I have been on WP for years and have never heard of WP:WQA. Please don't admonish editors in a fashion which assumes they are fully WP:ALPHABETSOUP aware, or judge who is being superficial--WP:AGF I believe would be in order on your part--or sincere. Thank you. PetersV       TALK 21:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hyperlinks are wonderful. When you click on them, you can discover what they mean. Let's try to keep this thread on topic, please. Most of the time I am a firm believer in WP:WOTTA, but sometimes I go for the shortcuts. If you don't like it, revoke my bonus. Jehochman Talk 23:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User:Vecrumba[edit]

Let's take Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia. There's a major edit war over POV tagging, we have SkyBon and Alaexis (a longstanding pro-separatist editor, mainly Abkhazia and South Ossetia, I am familiar with) arrayed against a number of editors...

As far as I can see, this is Russavia's first (thwarted) POV battle with Biophys, and the likely start of bad editorial blood at least where Russavia was concerned. It's been downhill from there in terms of Russavia's collegiality. Russavia has become increasingly strident and accusatory of POV as they have apparently been bitten by the defend the Russian position at any cost against the anti-Russian hate-fest mongers. PetersV       TALK 20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. There's also Russavia pushing their POV by adding Abkhazia's flag to the Gallery of sovereign-state flags as well as South Ossetia's as soon as Russia recognized them. Russavia is now the arbiter of state sovereignty as well. There are more insidious changes as well, such as deleting and inserting inappropriate article categories, the list goes on. PetersV       TALK 20:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Who do you suggest should be blocked or banned for this edit warring? Jehochman Talk 23:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, why are you complaining about edits from nearly half a year ago? Yeah, the edits by Russavia in that sequence constitute edit warring. I already know Russavia has a history of edit warring. Do you have anything fresh to report? If not, please don't lengthen this thread needlessly with stale complaints. Jehochman Talk 13:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear, it wasn't to bring up stale complaints. I was trying to determine when the conflict with Biophys started, as before the problems over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russavia was by all counts a productive and constructive editor often doing the kind of thankless drudge work which few volunteer to do but which makes WP usable for the rest of us. It's been a different story since Russavia has been defending Russia against the Russophibic hordes; my interaction with Russavia has only been more recent and not overly constructive. PetersV       TALK 05:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I understand now. Do you think we can steer Russavia back towards productive contributions and away from battling with the "Russophobic hordes", or is the situation hopeless (e.g. a long pattern of disruption that warrants an indefinite block)? Jehochman Talk 09:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, now I am unproductive? This is hilariously fantastic. Ambassador of Russia to Austria -- see this here, I just put this into mainspace in the last 24 hours, and will be taking to WP:FL in the coming days. What was the last significant contribution by these editors? Or article expanded? Or article cleaned up (as in referencing, wikilinking, etc). So please, do not push the rubbish that I am unproductive, and that I am disruptive, because that is pure bullshit (WP:SPADE applies here, and I'll be damned if others are going to call me, or imply that I am an, unproductive and a long-term disruptive editor.) --Russavia Dialogue 09:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, I didn't just remove the quotes in the article Vecrumba brings here, for no reason. There is an explanation at Talk:Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_Abkhazia#Inappropriate_POV_quotes as to why, and opened it up for discussion on where to place them, and how. Quotes are found in books at beginning of chapters to present the POV which this chapter will take. WP is not a book, it's an NPOV encyclopaedia, where POV is not supposed to be presented anywhere, much less as a summary of an article section. It was actually this article which was the catalyst for my starting Georgia for Georgians - a vile ethno-nationalist doctrine pushed by the then-President of Georgia, Gamsakhurdia - because the ethnic cleansing glossed over this part of that time, and it was one of the catalysts for the ethnic cleansing. Yet, even things like this are "poisoned" in terms of NPOV by the addition of huge quotes at section beginnings. It would be no different to my placing a huge quote at the beginning of Mikheil_Saakashvili#Foreign_relations stating that Saakashvili "is a fucking lunatic" (Google it people). I think it is pretty damned obvious it is not I who is here for advocacy of POV. --Russavia Dialogue 10:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I must support Russavia here. Just look into the history of his contributions. In fact Biophys even expressed his doubts that this is a single person because of the sheer volume of his contributions. Most of them are constructive and positive, some can be seen as POV-pushing or restoring NPOV (depending on your own POV). All of his edits are well-sourced and argumented on the talk page. I would dare say that his editing habits are better than of those who accused him Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
There are hints that the "double personality" of User:Russavia is due to the "real Russavia" allowing his password to be used by the banned User:Miyokan. For just one piece of the picture, most of the troubles with Russavia have taken place after the community decided to ban Miyokan. These hints should be investigated; if true, it should be easy to get the old and productive Russavia back merely by enforcing Miyokan's ban, and making sure Russavia doesn't let him further ruin his reputation. Then, there's no need to indefinitely block Russavia.
As a firm believer in eliminationism being a sin, I'm imploring all administrators to only consider indefinite blocks as a last resort. Considering the difference between spheres of interest of original Russavia and Miyokan, a topic ban -- of which topics would need to be demarcated based on the results of the investigation -- might be a more appropriate way to retain the talent of Russavia while keeping away the foul-fingered Miyokan. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you read User_talk:Russavia/Archive_6#Want_to_run_a_checkuser_on_me.3F_Well_read_on......, and read very closely, before making yet continued accusations of sockpuppeting. I will resist another checkuser being done on this basis. Honestly, the sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting accusations are getting really, really old. It's like those who can't stop propagating the lies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and the continued accusations can be seen as WP:DISRUPTIVE and constitutes further WP:HARRASSMENT (I do see it as harrassment towards myself to continually having to answer ridiculous notions such as this, and I will not be entertaining such rubbish in future). --Russavia Dialogue 10:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Allowing a banned user to use your password is not sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, at least as these concepts are usually understood. Sockpuppetry is attempt to increase one's stature by creating extra fake accounts. Allowing another user access to your account is exactly the reverse: it's maintaining another user's access to Wikipedia at the cost of reduced stature.
I'm afraid checkuser is poorly equipped to detect such, shall we say, reverse sockpuppetry. This would need to be investigated using other means.
On a related note, I do not appreciate your insinuations of I making accusations towards you. To the contrary! I'm offering you a way out. If you don't come clean on this, Miyokan's continued abuse is likely to lead to ban for yourself just as it did get his own account banned, and as I explained, I'd find such an outcome unpleasant. Such a ban would likely be avoidable if you took active steps against Miyokan abusing your account. Like it or not, he was banned for good reasons, and harbouring him under your own credentials is a bad idea. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 12:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Will someone please put a stop to this?!? This is nothing but continued harrassment. --Russavia Dialogue 14:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User:Martintg[edit]

Coming soon. Martintg (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reopened this discussion. User:Jehochman seems to have prematurely closed this little over 24 hours after this report was filed, and despite me flagging my intent to comment on this (family commitments this Sunday presently prevent me sufficient time to comment, but as I've been mentioned, comment I will). I have been offended by Russavia's continued unprovoked personal attacks, gross incivility, assumptions of bad faith and groundless accusations of "wikistalking". I will add the relevant diffs later today.Martintg (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I asked a piece of advice from an uninvolved and impartial administrator[150].Biophys (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
As you now want to have your say, perhaps you can tell these admins exactly how you came to appear on a multitude of articles which you have never edited before, only to see you revert changes I made, and how you even found articles is my userspace and tried to have it speedied. This question has been asked of you numerous times, and everytime you have refused to answer. Now is the time to answer. --Russavia Dialogue 08:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I did not intend to close the discussions. I mangled an edit, which accidentally left a misplaced {{archive top}} without an {{archive bottom}}. Jehochman Talk 13:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Russavia has made a personal attack against me, in relation to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, embodied in a section titled "Martintg's POV-pushing" (subsequently renamed Talk:International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia#Russavia.27s_issues). In relation to this article Russavia makes a further unwarranted personal attack against myself, accusing me of being a "serial stalker", which I then asked him to tone down his incivility]. I've been interested in this and related articles since the so-called "South Ossetian War" last year [151].

This accusation of "Wikistalking" by Russavia is just an attempt to deflect attention from his incivility and is an example of the combative approach he has adopted. Russavia has created and edited many articles, often working twenty or more hours, up to 61 hours without a break according to one reports. Wannebe_kate shows some 24326 distinct pages articles edited by him, while the articles Russavia claims to have been "wikistalked" is a tiny handful, related mainly to Estonia, such as eSStonia and List_of_most_common_surnames#Estonia, however I have had a long involvement with Estonia-related articles, which I act as both recent-change-patroller and informal wiki-project Estonia co-ordinator since User:Sander Säde sadly left, using tools and watchlists to track changes.

To be fair, Russavia has made and is making a fine contribution, except for a very small number of articles where he comes across as a very combative and strident Russian nationalist (ironically he claims to be Australian), that other Russian editors are apparently embarrassed by his egregious POV pushing and do not want help him. It's almost has if there are two people sharing the one account, the reasonable editor making a great contribution and the ultra-nationalist edit warrior, perhaps that may explain the long edit sessions.

But I digress. Russiavia has proven to be too combative in his attitude and has been repeatedly warned about this excessive confrontationalism. I wouldn't like to see Russavia be blocked as he is a productive editor most of the time, but a selective topic restriction may be most effective way to reduce the unnecessary confrontation, incivility and personal attacks. I propose a restriction on articles related to Russian-Georgian war, Estonian-Russian relations and Alexander Litvenko. Others here can make other proposals. Martintg (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Your personal attack on Russavia tends to discredit the rest of what you say. Commenting that an editor goes 61 hours straight is not really relevant, and is unnecessarily ad homeinem. Jehochman Talk 13:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Shrug, you seem to believe that polite comment is uncivil too, so I am not surprised you also believe praising good contributions and long hours is a personal attack. I don't know what kind of society you live in Jehochman, but where I am from working long hours is considered positive trait. Is this a case of "watching things from afar" and seeing Canals on Mars? There are no "gangs of editors who goes after anyone who gets in their way". If you had have been more attuned to what is going on, you would know that ArbCom has closely looked at the issue of gangs and cabals in EE and has found no evidence of such things, so I don't think your view "from afar" is any more reliable. No one is "gaming the system" as you contend, or attempting to get him banned, we just want the combative Russian nationalist POV pushing, and the incivility that comes with it, to stop. Russavia seems particularly upset that I had his "eSStonia" article in his userspace speedied, and sees this as evidence of "stalking". It is nothing personal, I would have had that article speedied if it was on Jimbo's userspace; Wikipedia is no soapbox for User:Roobit style racist propaganda, something that I regularly patrol for. I am an editor in good standing with a clean block log, I have long and deep experience with the issues of EE, I know nationalist POV pushing and incivility when I see it, and I know what works in terms of remedies, and in this case a selective topic restriction under the discretionary sanctions regime is the best option in my view. Martintg (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Very well. Selective topic banning might be an option. What would you suggest? I am a bit concerned by Digwuren's involvement. Past history of that account suggests potential issues. The reason this thread is not closed is that you and other editors with clear block logs also seem to think there is a problem. At the moment my inclination is to attempt warnings and education. Has Russavia been brought to WP:AE before? Jehochman Talk 09:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Your "explanation" still does not explain how you managed to find articles which you have never edited before, but managed to revert me on. User:Russavia/eSStonia is a prime example. Digwuren spoke for you, and said you managed to find it by some tool that was handed down to you by an Estonian editor. As it is in my userspace Can you please tell us what tool, and exactly how you found that article using said tool. Or how about List of common surnames, which you had never edited on. Answer those two (even though there are plenty more). You don't blame the effect for the cause, but the cause for the effect. The effect is that I have been uncivil on a few occasions, what is the cause? And one will note that there is a common link; edits of mine are reverted by yourself or Digwuren on articles which you have never edited previously, and which have nothing to do with the Estonia project.
And you want to have me banned from Alexander Litvinenko? Unusual request, given that in the last few days I have expanded the Litvinenko article (after Biophys tediously removed huge amounts of neutral, sourced information on several occasions) and have NPOVed out large sections with more to go; and have been mindful of other POV, because I am mindful of other POV, and will push to have multiple POV in articles. Also, I will note you assisted Biophys with this not so long ago, and who can forget the inserting, and constantly re-inserting an Arbcom decision into web brigades, even after being told by multiple editors that WP is not a reliable source. That was disruptive editing (which unfortunately includes your re-insertion), and you want me banned from these articles? You should also look on the talk page of the Litvineko article...when the last time Biophys asserted his undeniable ownership of the article and demanded that all edits to the article be discussed on the talk page, even though that is so WP:TEDIOUS any editor or admin can see that for what it is, particularly as it goes against WP:BOLD, we reluctantly "agreed", and myself, Offliner and Grey-Fox came up with a lead for the article that all 3 of us could pretty much agree on. Then along came Biophys, ignoring the demands he made on us, and started adding things in himself, obviously totally ignoring the discussion that he demanded of us, and which it was also noted that the lead was surprisingly NPOV -- that was noted by Grey-Fox. I might have opinions that you don't like (and that I don't really care if you like it or not), but one thing I have never done is inserted my opinion into an article in mainspace. And I would challenge anyone to find a single instance of this.
And you want me banned from Estonian-Russian relations articles, even though my editing in this area has been quite limited thus far, and has more been so in relation to Bronze Night and pointing out obvious original research, which an IP editor from Estonia would constantly revert on the main article (I find many tedious edits from IP addresses from rabid Estonian nationalists in various places around WP that they wouldn't be if they weren't stalking my edits). Or are you talking about eSStonia. Look, do you know why that was created? If time and time and time again people keep arguing to keep articles based not upon policy, but upon a desire to have advocacy on WP, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Putinisms_(2nd_nomination) is a great example (look at the talk of the AfD even to see that many people just don't get it, then surely those editors have to realise that they are lowering the bar standard wise. Now, with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend, you all voted in unison to keep this, even though questions raised on the talk page and in the AfD itself were never answered, thereby you have participated in lowering the bar. Unfortunately, what we didn't realise at the time is the amount of incorrect synthesis you yourself inserted into the article (does Schmid ring a bell?) Only in the last days has Offliner done a great job at verifying this incorrect synthesis by yourself. I imagine if he did that whilst the AfD in play, it would have been a different result. But even now, you fight tooth and nail to keep Putinjugend, instead of moving it to Pro-Kremlin youth movement. But I disgress, by you and others all voting with your POV-advocacy hat on, instead of with a WP hat on, you have lowered the standard for inclusion of articles onto WP. Hence, I created eSStonia some time afterwards, and it was fully sourced, and a half decent article on the term, and included actual usage of the term in society, rather than simple attack names by journalists and commentators (as Putinjugend is)....and oh, what a sh*t storm that created, because for once, you were shown that you have reduced the limits for inclusion of articles and that this can have consequences for the project. And this of course, resulted in YOU creating Putinland; a term which had a made-up definition, and which was defined by yourself as you found another of the few sources to use the term; this was noted into the AfD.
Push for sanctions on me for these articles, I also ask for similar sanctions, particularly given you are no innocent party in this, and also given the last few days. Especially telling is your unilateral move of International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to International non-recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, even though the title was agreed upon by involved editors on that article (on which I was one). This title lead to discussion on the talk page of International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo, at which it was decided that it would be moved to International recognition of Kosovo. Even now, "editors" are pushing their unsourced, POV opinions into the article. Now, you may think that Kosovo is a partially recognised country due to being recognised by several dozen countries, but that A & SO do not fulfill this definition (partially recognised); this goes in with my "nobody" comment. Who are we as editors to dictate content on WP, when we have millions of sources which verify the fact that Russia and Nicaragua recognise A & SO. The fact that these millions of sources exist means that they fulfill the definition of a "partially recognised country", and this has seen semantics on the talk page in an effort to advocate POV which isn't backed up by sources. I have made the suggestion that instead of you guys removing A & SO, but leaving Kosovo and Taiwan, which presents POV problems, that we leave all four included on lists, with notations that their status is disputed. This is even unacceptable to you guys, because you still revert and revert and revert. And I am being called the POV-pusher, when my suggestion, which has been suggested/backed up/expanded upon by other editors, is clearly in the interests of NPOV.
This is getting worse and worse, for I am showing you all where there are clearly problems with actual content, and have yet to see anything content-related from others, and I am being branded a nationalist POV-pusher. I would appreciate evidence, rather than pure dishonest semantics. Anyway, I still want an answer to my question about those two articles, as continued refusal to answer them has only lead to myself (and others also I will let you know) to come to the obvious conclusion that you have been stalking my edits. People can't assume good faith forever when answers to questions are never given; a straight, honest answer has been asked for, and never received.
Also, Martintg, in regards to people who "do not want help him", I suggest you read EVERYTHING that this neutral admin said in his reply, and I appreciate his reply (particularly the fact I am here to build a useful resource), and I also appreciate his reasons for not wanting to get involved. Given that showing previous attempts at resolution is a part of filing for arbitration, that was part of that process, and if a neutral admin can see that things are so bad, then that is saying something. And given that if he were to have looked at it, he would have to be reading exactly what is written here now, and would likely also have to deal with editors attacking him as an admin when they are cautioned to stay off someone's talk page, and a whole lot of other rubbish. I don't blame him, nor hold it against him, for wanting to stay away from this, and concentrate on creating content; something I want to do, but have been unable to do on occasion due to a variety of reasons, and it is these reasons which I have noted above, but am still yet to receive an actual answer on --- there's a lot of deflection going on, but some answers would be good. --Russavia Dialogue 04:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

More personal accusations by Russavia[edit]

I would like to note that Russavia accused me of "paranoid nuttery" in the end of this diff he cited above. He is doing this to "prove" that he is a civil editor!. He simply fails to understand what polite behavior is. No mentioning that his accusation is false. Sorry people, but I am not crazy and very much capable of critical thinking as anyone with ISI citation index above 1000. I do not like any theories, unless such theories are firmly supported by facts. I created a couple of "conspiracy theory" articles (one of them Litvinenko assassination theories) merely to remove doubtful materials from main articles, and it were in fact Russavia and Offliner who included garbage (propaganda) "theories" in several articles, as correctly noted by Colchichum.Biophys (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

R. made a point that he was provoked by Colchicum. But then why did he attack me (see the diff)? Simply because is trying to defame and attack me everywhere, just as he attacks Martintg and Digwuren right now.Biophys (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Well seeing as you proudly tell everyone here you have a ISI citation index above 1000, perhaps you can tell us why after Arbcom let you off on the understanding you would stop the nuttery that people are members of government teams, you have continued to insinuate this against other editors (myself included), and then have widened the scope of the accusations against others (especially me) being meatpuppets, and a host of other things. Someone with a ISI citation index above 1000 would surely know that this means to STOP. But no, it continued and continued and continued, and I actually had to DEMAND that a CU be done on myself, in order to get you to stop, but even once that result was known, you KEPT GOING!! Having a ISI citation index above 1000 does not excuse your consistent harrassment (which Colchicum even pulled you up on!!). What will Arbcom say next time in this regard? --Russavia Dialogue 09:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I somehow doubt that Biophys has a significant citation index in the modern history and AFAIK his biophysic articles are outside the editorial conflict, thus, the citation index of him, or mine or Russaiva's busyness successes are not that relevant to the conflict. What might be relevant is that a group of editors seems to check Russavia's contributions more often than their own watchlists. They does not do it to help in editing or admire the volume of his contributions (and obviously not to fix vandalism as there are none) but to pick up POV fights. I am not sure that this is described by WP:STALK as I doubt their efforts are only intended to harass Russavia, but they have similar effect anyway: poisoning the editorial relations and numerous POV wars instead of productive editing. I think it should be stopped somehow. Might be a restriction for the parties of the conflict Russavia+Offliner+HistoriWarrior vs Biophys+Marting+Digwuren to stay away from the articles other party significantly edited might be helpful Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Russavia. Your diffs and ArbCom rulings do not support your statement. Your statement only shows that you prefer to attack other editors, rather than to apologize and refactor your uncivil comments here and elsewhere, as was suggested by Jechochman.Biophys (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Alex. Please do not place me in any group of ethnic edit warriers. I am a Russian editor who is in good relations with editors from Poland, Estonia, Ukraine, US, North Caucasus, and yes, I am in good relations with many Russian editors.Biophys (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply to both. Yes, the citation index is relevant. This tells that I am a regular scientist, and as such I do not like any pseudo-scientific "theories" (please do not mix with knowledge unavailable for general public). I am telling this is to repel some groundless accusations by Alex_Bakharev [152] and Russavia [153].Biophys (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Invalid arguments by Jehochman[edit]

Jechochman provided the following arguments in support of Russavia: (1) R. has been provoked; (2) people who provided diffs about R. do not like him; and (3) this is all too complicated and needs intervention of Arbcom. All these arguments are hardly appropriate. Argument (1). No, even if R. was provoked (which I doubt), this does not justify his own incivility per WP:CIV. Argument (2). No, if the diffs clearly show misbehavior by Russavia (and they do), it does not really matter who and why provided these diffs. Argument (3). R. is welcome to try to prove that other users are at fault, but he is clearly a subject of immediate discretionary sanctions per a previous ArbCom ruling. He must be either placed under a civility parole or topic banned from editing anything related to Russian government - based on the diffs provided in the beginning of this AE and his obvious denial that he did anything wrong at all.Biophys (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't denied anything. I admitted at Moreschi's talk page that I was uncivil, and I apologised already. No apology for anything I raised has ever been received by me. You are simply trying to prevent me from taking this to Arbcom, as it is evident from Digwuren's talk page, none of you want that, and frankly, I don't care what may or may not happen there. This just goes to show that I am an open and upfront editor. And still, not a single thing that I have addressed or asked has been answered by a single editor here. A blind man should be able to see that, not a single question has been answered. I have provided a list of articles which NO-ONE had edited previously, yet editors found themselves on after I edited, and it was only to revert me. Some of them are reverts such as this - I have asked Digwuren on numerous occasions to use edit summaries in the past, but "rvv" on an article he has never edited before, which he has reverted me 24 hours later. Did Digwuren all of a sudden have the urge to check this article, or does it demonstrate that he has been stalking my edits, and is reverting only to harrass myself and interfere with the editing process. Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_December_7#Image:RussiaOlegPantukhov.png is the discussion for an image which you had never edited before, and which I correctly nominated as unfree (it was tagged with PD-Russia), and you voted to keep with nothing more, and then claimed it had been discussed previously (a complete fabrication!!). Just how did you get to that discussion? And why did you vote keep, when it was evident it was an unfree image, and then you claimed it had been discussed for. Why do that? If it weren't be disruptive, why do that? Funnily enough, I thought I was on Commons when I nominated that for deletion; if I had of realised it was on WP, I would have change it to non-free and provided rationale myself (this was done by another editor later). And I dare I bring up the continual poorly-sourced reinsertions by yourself of accusations that Putin is a paedophile on the Litvinenko article? Sooner or later, an admin is going to have to step up and see that you breached BLP in a gross way --- but too this day, not a single one has, apart from Ezhiki, who confirmed that your version was a BLP violation, and that the version I came up with NPOV and not a breach of BLP. So yes, this is something for Arbcom, don't you think? Because they will be forced to look at the BLP violation, and will be unable to ignore it. --Russavia Dialogue 15:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, you got me. I am a member of a secretive cabal of people whose interest is directed towards a new direction daily via special missives hand-delivered to our houses every morning. We call ourselves "newspaper subscribers". Fancy, huh?
Oh, by the way: how do you know what topic you're interested in for the day? I presume you have nothing to do with newspapers or TV news -- so how do you do it? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the party[edit]

The squabbling on this thread may not bode well for the future participation of editors involved. If you look carefully, you can see that I have warned each party: Biophys, not to game the rules or head-hunt for sanctions as an extension of editorial disputes; Marting and Digwuren, not to bait, harass or annoy Russavia; and Russavia, to maintain his cool and to respect WP:NPOV. If anybody takes my advice to heart, they should be fine. Each of you, your fate is in your own hands. Anybody who plays games like "I didn't hear you" or "that guy should be banned" or "I don't give a fuck about civility" will be sanctioned, next time. Hopefully I have made this very clear. Each of you, please go edit an article; preferably different articles. If you run into trouble with each other, avoid conflict. Instead, ask for help from uninvolved editors at low-drama venues like WP:WQA and WP:3O. (Click to see what those abbreviations mean). Thank you, good bye. Jehochman Talk 16:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.