Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:56, 12 September 2006

This is a failed proposal. Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

New reports

Squeakbox and Hagiographer

Squeakbox (talk · contribs) was blocked for a week per his personal attack parole (resulting from arbitration) for writing on his user page that one of his achievements was

restoring José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero from the POV of another user who claims to write about saints but who is determined to slur him.

This is a veiled reference to Hagiographer (talk · contribs), who acts exactly like Zapatancas (talk · contribs), the other party in arbitration. Squeakbox modified the reference so it now says,

restoring José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero from the POV of another user who claims to write about saints.

Hgiographer claims this is still a personal attack and changed the user page on his own several times before it was protected. I would like some idea on whether the revised statement is acceptable or whether it sill constitutes a personal attack. No action is required at this time as Squeakbox is currently blocked for other reasons. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

ThuranX

This user has repeatedly taken personal shots at me because my view on a continuing debate is different than his. I have said many times in that discussion that I do not appreciate the personal remarks like these, but they have not stopped. ThuranX has also been amply warned/banned for uncivil behavior.

Here are some of the earlier remarks:

• get a clue

• You're NUTS (also "Tired of markovich's duplicities" (misspelled) is in the edit summary)

• Accusations of hero worship and bad faith

Here are the warnings/blocks:

• Uncivil Warning

• Blocked for Uncivil Behavior

The following is the most recent and blatant attack. It references my alleged attitudes (that ThuranX claims I hold) about a particular person (the same one he makes claims of me having a "hero worship" attitude about) and attempts to use this to discredit my views and discredit claims (by myself and others) that policy does not support his actions, a clear violation of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks.

• NPA Offense

Thank you for your help in this matter, Markovich292 05:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Open reports

AOluwatoyin (talk · contribs)

Made a personal attack against me here, using a running attack of his in which he insults my education by calling me a freshman. He is also using a sock puppet, User:207.161.6.149, to make a false report of personal attacks against him by me (notice that he writes exactly the same way) and pretending to be a separate person sympathizing with him on his talk page. After being banned for a week for his incivility, he still hasn't quit it, and he's only getting worse. -- LGagnon 01:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

So now the admins won't even do anything? You know this guy is a trouble maker - that's why you guys banned him so many times. Don't ignore this just because you are mad at me for a totally different situation. -- LGagnon 01:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Now User:LaszloWalrus (who could be another sock puppet of his) is also using a sock puppet against me here. Notice he signs his posts for both himself and the anon IP. -- LGagnon 12:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

And now AOluwatoyin is making threats of legal action. And again, I don't see why some of the admins choose to ignore this. -- LGagnon 12:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Editor has been blocked for 10 days; any further legal threats will change this to indef. Shell 03:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

218.186.8.13 (talk · contribs)

Was warned for making a personal attack at WP:DRV and responded with a legal threat, both at User talk:218.186.8.13. ~ trialsanderrors 21:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week for making legal threats. Shell 03:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs)

Continues to attack Eric Lerner, the subject of this article, and a fellow editor, despite extra care being required for Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons, and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks telling us that we should not be "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views". Both of these are Official Policy.

• ScienceApologist refuses to accept that Eric Lerner was a Visiting Astronomer at the European Southern Observatory (ESO), despite verifiable evidence on a Nasa Web site , and a second source here .
• Eric Lerner himself has also confirmed that he was Visiting Astronomer
• This is one of a series of edits which appear to be designed to discredit Eric Lerner, and also include:

• Removal of awards
• Discrediting his "theories" by calling them "ideas"
• Removing positive reviews, and replacing them with negative ones
• Addition of "David Spergel" criticism, based on a comment on someone's blog which fails Misplaced Pages's standards on reliable sources.

• This appear to be a continuation of trying to discredit various controversial scientists, including:

• Dr. László Körtvélyessy, from whom ScienceApologist removed credentials, that Körtvélyessy "is physicist who is candidate of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences"
• Disrespectful to career scientists, labelling "(the late Prof. Paul) Marmet and Carezani as well-known woo-woos" , Halton Arp's work as "pathological skepticism" , Big Bang critics as "a list full of 'critics' who range from geologists to the out-and-out insane (such as Van Flandern)."

At the least, I would like to see ScienceApologist banned from editing the article Eric Lerner, ideally banned from editing all articles on science. --Iantresman 14:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I would seriously like to be able to help here. I agree that the diffs you provided show unacceptable behavior - it is one thing to balance an article, another entirely to selectively remove bits thus skewing the overall impression. Unfortunately, this looks like a job for RfC or even ArbCom depending on whats already been tried. I don't believe any block made for personal attacks would stand. Shell 03:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If they are personal attacks, then they are against official policy. If they are skewing the overall impressing, this is defined as "Misplaced Pages:POV pushing" which it defines as "undermining Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy", again which is against policy. And the examples shows repeated attempts. To do nothing sends out the messages that "unacceptable behavior" may be tolerated, official policy is merely a guideline, and there is no reason for the user to discontinue? --Iantresman 06:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And thus you run into the age old problem - blocking is preventative, not punative. Complex cases like these are generally handled through the dispute resolution process because its simply set up better to handle these issues. If you liken this page more to WP:AIV, you'll understand why its really better for clear cut cases of currently occuring personal attacks. I'm going to leave ScienceApologist a final warning about his conduct related to Eric Lerner - please drop a note on my talk page if he continues. Shell 11:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue of an editor refusing to comply with Misplaced Pages policy is, I believe, the situation here. Whatever language he uses, his edits defy WP:V. This is an unusual situation, usually editors who defy policy do so in good faith and when educated, comply with policy. Perhaps WP:V needs to state more strongly to not remove sourced, referenced, cited information. Terryeo 14:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've had the same editor remove verifiable information from many other articles, for all kinds of reasons. You can read some of his comments on some of my sources under his previous username, JoshuaShroeder in the subsection "Joshua Shroeder's evidence against me" --Iantresman 15:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• This issue, while not specifically appropriate for this board is being handled, see my talk page for updates. Shell 16:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages failed proposals
• Inactive project pages