Revision as of 09:27, 23 March 2009

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Edit this section for new requests

Disruptive edits to the Mehmet Talat article

Ibrahim4048 (talk · contribs) has been making repeated reverts to the Mehmet Talat article to insert the word "alleged" in front of the phrase "Armenian Genocide".

On the 22nd March he did it on five occasions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278846793&oldid=278798713
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278862357&oldid=278859393
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278962105&oldid=278946499
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278964259&oldid=278963506
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278973428&oldid=278964782

On the 21st March he did it twice
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278702548&oldid=278573478
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278755731&oldid=278743423

On the 18th March he did it twice
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278024832&oldid=277955955
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278142291&oldid=278131324

This use of the word "alleged" contradicts the majority academic viewpoint as well as all the other Armenian Genocide-related articles on Misplaced Pages (including the main article, the Armenian Genocide entry). The proper route would be for him to present his arguments on the talk page of the Armenian Genocide article, and if they were accepted there, any changes would flow down to other articles containing Armenian Genocide-related content, including the Talat one. However, Ibrahim4048 seems intent on using only the Talat article as a platform for his marginal opinion. Under Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 Amended Remedies and Enforcement can this editor be given restrictions that will stop him from editing the Mehmet Talat article? Meowy 21:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

Could someone please have a kind word with Stevewunder (talk · contribs) about his topic ban (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand#Stevewunder topic banned and warned? He is a relatively new editor, and I believe he may not understand our conventions about topic bans. He could use a little guidance, rather than a stern warning. Thanks! --Vassyana (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, could an uninvolved administrator please look over Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), particularly in the context of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand#Editors not named and the following remedy? Thanks! --Vassyana (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to second the latter request; a couple of new editors have shown up and the climate around the article has changed to be confrontational with editor's POVs on clear display and veiled insults in every other comment. Watchlisting and intervention by experienced admins very welcome. Skomorokh 18:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter Damian's insults seem quite open, such as "Whoever removed this is a complete WP:DICK." and "This is easily one of the stupidest things you have said. Which is something in itself.". He provides a link to Misplaced Pages Review where he indicates that Arbcom ought to have included him in the earlier action. "Interesting that I wasn't topic-banned at all, despite having a 24-hour block from Connelly for edit-warring (and calling one of the objectivist editors a 'wakner'). Could there possibly be a political bias here? Arbcom knowing well that I have given the Rand issue a high profile as I could within the profession.". Colonel Warden (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You were provocative you know Colonel Warden. However whoever looks at this should note that we have a set of new editors exclusively on one side of the debate (there seem to be a supply of editors ready to move into pages associated with Rand/Objectivism etc.). Skomorokh while sympathetic is doing his/her best to keep the temperature down and stay neutral. However the root cause of the behaviour issues, namely questions of evidence (which are common to other articles with cult like followings) were not addressed and are now back. In this case managing behaviour is managing symptoms not causes. --Snowded (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that I am a cult member, you are mistaken. I observed some coverage of Ayn Rand in the Economist a few weeks back and so I cited this while making some other minor changes which seemed appropriate. In the discussions today, I found another good source which seems to assist us but my thanks for this is vituperation and innuendo. It is disgraceful. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I said that questions of evidence were common to pages that attract cult like followings. The only comment I made about you directly (or by inference) was that you had been provocative (which was a good faith assumption given your comment that Peter references below). --Snowded (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I was commenting on your remark that ""As academic philosophers take little interest in our topic, it follows that, in general, they are not a good source for it. " Does anyone deny that was a monumentally stupid thing to say? In general, you are trying your best to remove any sense of academic neutrality from this article, and I am opposing it, because academic neutrality is what I stand for in Misplaced Pages. Peter Damian (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

On my remark about being a WP:DICK this was directed against the idea that the Oxford Companion to Philosophy was not a reliable source. Peter Damian (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've warned the editor. Vassyana, if you or other editors feel that anybody else is violating the rulings, please name them and cite specific diffs. The best way to get enforcement action is through a concise report naming the case, the sanction, the editors and the diffs. Requests to "look this over" are not particularly helpful on this short-staffed board.  ;-) Jehochman 09:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition of 'recently edited in relation to Abtract and Alastair Haines

OK, as I am a friend of Alastair I am involved, but thought I would point out this series of edits by Abtract which would appear to be in violation of this ruling, although Alastair last edited on the page a month previous. Anyway, I will leave it for someone impartial to decide. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, how about Alastair's edit followed by Abtract's revert four days later. Abtract was blocked two weeks in January by Shell Kinney. It seems that the ruling is being gamed. Alastair came to the article before Abtract, as far as I can tell, reviewing the history back one year. The block will be a month, the maximum allowed by the ruling. Jehochman 10:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this is an edit war from prior to the arbitration ruling:

• 22:23, 22 February 2009 Abtract (remove text that has been disputed for several months)
• 04:04, 18 February 2009 Alastair Haines (restore undisputed text)
• 19:06, 24 January 2009 Abtract (remove disputed ideas with no citation)
• 20:20, 20 December 2008 Casliber (leave a fact tag then - text can be analysed better if present rather than absent - some of it I have read before IIRC)
• 08:23, 19 December 2008 Abtract (remove OR and POV)
• 23:10, 18 December 2008 Alastair Haines (restore description of notability)
• 08:35, 25 November 2008 Abtract (rv renewed attempt to introduce pov which isn't that relevant even were it to be properly cited)
• 02:41, 25 November 2008 Alastair Haines (Undid revision 253440542 by Abtract (talk) please provide sources for alternative views you are aware of ... and add them! :))
• 19:07, 22 November 2008 Abtract (remove para laced with pov)
• 06:56, 2 May 2008 Alastair Haines (multi-ref)
• 00:20, 2 May 2008 Alastair Haines (+chastity)

A look at the discussion page does appear to indicate that the chastity paragraph was disputed in November and December, and undiscussed since then. So "restore undisputed text" does not seem to be an accurate edit summary. Alastair Haines' edits appear to be contrary to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Alastair Haines restricted (discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page) and the final sentence of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Motion re Abtract (avoid any unnecessary interaction with Abtract). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Looking deeper, I saw that Abtract came to the article only after Alastair was already involved. It seems like Abtract showed up in November, mainly to annoy Alastair. In December, a motion was passed to precisely address that sort of behavior. I would think that Abtract should have taken the point and not continued the harassment of Alastair that was in progress. You say the content was disputed. To me, what Alastair added was a clear definition of terminology, the kind of content that helps provide context and makes an article more readable. Did anybody besides Abtract object to that content? Jehochman 15:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I was not arguing against the sanction of Abtract; I've had to block him in the past too. But the arbitration outcome for Alastair Haines' does not mention that content reversions need not be discusses if he's reverting Abtract, or that he is to avoid unnecessary interaction with Abtract unless no other editor is on Abtract's side. And finally, I did see that BananaFiend also objected to the content on 10:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC) (and again later) on the Talk page, which is why I observed that the content was disputed. Alastair Haines should have taken the point and not restarted the edit war (18 December) without discussion right after the motion re Abtract was finished (17 December). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does take two editors to make an edit war. Would you warn Alastair about this behavior (since you noticed it), or place whatever sanction you see fit. Jehochman 15:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A fairly thorough investigation of the overlapping edits prior to the motion being passed was done by myself and Ncmvocalist during the request for clarification, but last time I went looking for it on the talk page (where it should be archived, I think), it appeared to be missing. John Vandenberg 16:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Clerk must have missed it, added at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Alastair_Haines#Motion_re_Abtract. MBisanz 06:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment (first contrib evidence links): according to this page contrib tool Alastair Haines first edited on 2007-10-25 and Abtract first edited about a year later on 2008-11-22 . Same goes for the talk page . R. Baley (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm, this block is five weeks after the edit in question - and refers to an editor (Abtract) who has been before arbcom for harassing other editors as well as Alastair - furthermore, the evidence against 'undisputed', namely the editor Bananafiend, made one comment in this section which came across as thoughtful and doubtful rather than opposed (and this is in November 2008), and he has never edited the article. This impresses as very tenuous grounds for a one week block (which I personally feel is unwarranted), but I acknowledge I am not impartial. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Both blocks are roughly the same time-distance from the latest contributions to the edit war, and both contributors are violating the terms of the arbitration. BananaFiend's participation in the discussion IMO has no bearing on either Abtract's or Alastair Haines' part of the slow edit war. Alastair Haines was to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page and avoid any unnecessary interaction with Abtract. Since they've already been through arbitration, and Alastair Haines' last two blocks from that arbitration were both 48hrs, I though 1w was a viable duration for this one. But I'm hardly active in this space (and only discovered it because I watch Abtract's Talk page, from back when I had my own disputes with him), so I'd be happy to get some mentoring from other admins about it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

We certainly need more hands here at AE, especially at some of the more complicated cases. I have state my opinion on the block, but I am unable to be unbiased here, so will ask someone uninvolved (who I thought would have turned up by now). Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, my block was for an edit on March 21 that continued a prior pattern. The diffs I cited from February were an earlier part of that pattern. I think it would be a good idea to offer to unblock Alastair if they agree not to edit war. I offered to unblock Abtract on certain conditions as well. Jehochman 20:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom injunction

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 Cole • t • c 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:
2. No link before, no link after.

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. 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." -J JMesserly (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Dismas

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 Cole • t • c 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| 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

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 Cole • t • c 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 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 Cole • t • c 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 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 Cole • t • c 11:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement of the second remedy of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2?

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters there aren't any actionable remedies, and in Misplaced Pages: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 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 Nobody 18:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions requested

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 09:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No. WP:CIV policy applies to all editing on Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages; 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 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 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 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 (, ).

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". Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith seems to be your style, Digwuren. Perhaps you should take a different approach. Jehochman 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 14:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't have any blindspot with respect to Russian nationalism.

Response

(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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 04:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User:Digwuren

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. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 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 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 13:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply by Biophys

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 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 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 23:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User:Vecrumba

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...

• Biophys restores an edit and adds additional well-sourced quotes
• which are deleted by SkyBon, citing Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources#Dealing_with_citation_problems which is not applicable
• Biophys restores,
• SkyBon deletes,
• Alaexis (recall, a defender of Abkhazia) restores as properly attributed
• some skirmishes and edits later, Russavia appears, deleting properly attributed materials (even according to Alaexis) as "inappropriate NPOV," that is, WP:NOTMYPOV.
• Kober restores,
• Russavia deletes again,
• Colchicum restores,
• Russavia deletes admonishing not to call their deletes vanadalism over POV,
• Biophys restores,
• Russavia slaps a NPOV tag on the article AND yet again deletes the material in question.
• After some intermediate edits, Biophys restores
• and Russavia reverts deletion admonishing Biophys not to revert when there is a "dispute" (recall, even Alaexis stated the quote was properly attributed) that is, "dispute" = anything in opposition to Russavia's POV.
• Kober restores. And so, thwarted in repeated deletion of properly attributed materials with which only Russavia had an issue, still in the article today, Russavia leaves.

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 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 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 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 09:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User:Martintg

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.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 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 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 .

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 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; Misplaced Pages 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 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, Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 04:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

The Original Wildbear

• The Original Wildbear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user's page states, Promoting accuracy in information. They have been disrupting Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center with tendentious, repetitious arguments. It is highly disruptive to repeat the same rejected proposals over and over again. We've seen this pattern many times before. I request that this account be banned from all 9/11 pages under WP:ARB9/11's discretionary sanctions. Thank you. Jehochman 08:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)