Dear Admins, I will be more than happy to help you with any questions/queries you might have on this case. I have not been editing in Misplaced Pages for several months due to my busy schedule and as soon as I appeared back, obviously my edits (not even edits but my appearance on talk pages) started irritating the above and other involved Armenian users. I see that all the links they have been posting on this and other admin pages are only targeting to relate me to Adil Bagirov just because he is a banned user: for one simple reason - to get me banned. These same users do not have anything else to use against me (violation of any Misplaced Pages rules).

All the claims with my "appearance" on the dates related to one or another banning, warning, edits, socks of any other banned or paroled users are groundless for one simple reason: This is called Misplaced Pages. Any user comes in at any time he's free and available to help expand Misplaced Pages. I am sure the same can be applied to Armenian users whose timing of appearance, edits, reverts coincide. Go figure now if they are socks or not. Maybe they should provide their timing on Misplaced Pages as well. Secondly, the issue of Geycha and Zangezur is NOT exclusive to Adil Bagirov. It is the history of Caucasus available in many libraries in many countries. If a previous user (Adil Bagirov in our case) has provided this specific information on Misplaced Pages first, that doesn't make any of the next Misplaced Pages users with the same information Adil Bagirovs or anyone related to him. We all read and write and get sources from somewhere. Let's then connect all Armenian users to the first Armenian who claimed Nagorno-Karabakh to be Armenian on Misplaced Pages, and let's declare the former to be fake users, shall we? Third, it's your own business of being impressed by Adil Bagirov and his trips to other countries, but I have been a Misplaced Pages user from one computer at one location. Admins can easily check that.

Once again, I am ready to provide the administrators with the requested information so that I am cleared from baseless accussations. (Ehud (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

FerryLodge, continued

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

The arbitration decision is limited to articles and topics related to abortion. For other issues, the normal dispute resolution mechanisms should be followed (RFC, third opinion, mediation). Thatcher 06:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

I believe FL again has made uncivil comments on talk pages. And this is particularly notable because they occurred while similar concerns were being brought up here. FL is not trying hard to avoid the personal attacks, even when there is this scrutiny over his editing. I bring up two cases: and . The first, FL says "I'm sure if Romney robbed banks with his father, then Qworty would be supporting as much detail as possible." There is no reason to speculate on what another editor would or would not support, especially when it is a hypothetical situation that involves disparaging a public figure. The comment would have been fine if that entire sentence was simply not there. Again, there is no reason to make accusatory statements about other editors on talk pages. The second example should be read completely (or even in context). He links to an inflamatory statement another user said about Odd nature 3 months ago. This is similar to when FL brought up another editor's political party affiliation by linking to off-site content (). These are all uncivil things, and should never have occurred on article talk pages. I'm writing this because I know FL will read it, and hopefully he will take it to heart and attempt to change. As I've said over and over this past month. Comment on content, not on users. I apologize that this isn't exactly related to the ArbCom enforcement (I will also note that the comments to Odd nature that happened today were in relation to Roe v. Wade, which is clearly related to abortion, although the article itself is Mitt Romney), but incivility is still a blockable offense, that I ask to be considered by an uninvolved admin. -Andrew c  22:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I object to Andrew c bringing up these insubstantial matters. Already on December 20 at this page, Andrew c asked “an uninvolved admin to review this case and possibly ban him from Roe v. Wade.” That request was rejected. Now Andrew c is back on December 26 with more.

Andrew c now raises three cases, which all occurred at the talk page of the article about Mitt Romney, and two of which have absolutely nothing whatseoever to do with abortion or pregnancy (which is the only type of issue addressed by the ArbCom decision in my case)....

First, this December 21 talk page comment was completely unrelated to abortion or pregnancy. Andrew c also takes that comment out of context. I said, “I'm sure if Romney robbed banks with his father, then Qworty would be supporting as much detail as possible. :-)” Note the smiley face at the end. No one complained or objected about this humorous comment then, nor during the time period from then until now. The person who I made the comment to (Qworty) had announced --- with no prompting from me --- that he is not a Republican, and Qworty had also argued at great length that we should insert detail into the Mitt Romney article about Romney's alleged Mormon underwear. My brief comment about robbing banks ought to be viewed in that context. It was a humorous remark completely unrelated to abortion or pregnancy, and so I do not understand why Andrew c is bringing it up here.

Second, Andrew c brings up this December 26 talk page comment which was tangentially related to abortion and pregnancy. Here is the comment in context. Andrew c objects to the fact that I linked “to an inflamatory statement another user said about Odd nature 3 months ago.” The comment to which I linked was an appropriate warning to Odd nature for having harassed me. I do not know why Odd nature showed up at the Mitt Romney article today to revert me, but I felt it would be appropriate to mention to Odd nature that “I hope we can have an unusually productive discussion here” in view of our past difficulties. There was nothing uncivil at all. It is ironic that one of the people accusing me here today can make wild accusations of antisemitism without the slightest repercussion, and yet Andrew c objects to me even suggesting the possibility that a user (Odd nature) may have previously behaved inappropriately toward me, which he most certainly did.

Third, Andrew c brings up this December 17 edit in which I referred to another editor's political party affiliation by linking to off-site content. And again, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with pregnancy or abortion, so Andrew c has no reason to bring it up here, unless his purpose is to rewrite the ArbCom decision. Please note that the other editor’s user page prominently has a link to the off-site content in question, calling it “my brush with fame.” So, I was not revealing any secrets. All I did was mention parenthetically to Qworty that the other editor is not a Republican, because I thought Qworty might find that interesting, seeing as how Qworty hadalready mentioned that he himself is not a Republican. There was nothing uncivil, and I explained the same thing when I was warned about it before.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I will address the last item as it involved me: I do not accept this explanation. There were 3 days and over 160 edits to that talk page in between Qworty's comment about himself that he is not a Republican, and Ferrylodge's comment about what the Washington Post article (that he was also featured in) said about my being a Democrat. It is hardly believable that he thought at that point in time out of the blue that it would be "interesting" to mention my nominal political affiliation (the article also said that I had not decided who I am supporting in this election) in a comment in which he also characterized my editing. I was not a party to the discussion in that section of the talk page, and Qworty wasn't talking about not being a Republican then or there, yet Ferrylodge brought me into it saying this:

"If we're going to keep this religion section, it ought to go at the end. Other candidates don't have such a section, and this material is not the most important stuff about him. But Tvoz insisted that it be up front, and accused me of trying to bury it (Tvoz is a Democrat by the way)."

In what universe is it believable that this was said just to provide an interesting side comment about my voter registration status? I believe it was a personal attack - it seems clear that it was an insinuation that my so-called "insisting" and "accusation" about the location of this material was politically motivated. The point was incorrect to boot - I was only one of the people who thought that placement made the most sense in the context of the article - indeed, it was a compromise solution that I helped create and which we reached consensus on to have the religious background section appear as the second section of the article, which broke the logjam and allowed the full protection of the page to be lifted. This is explained at the end of the section. This is not the first time that Ferrylodge has made irrelevant and gratuitous personal comments about me, and it is disturbing that this also went on during and now after the arbitration proceeding. Despite the fact that ArbCom chose to focus only on his tendentious editing of reproduction-related articles rather than also cautioning him about his similarly tendentious editing of political articles, I think it is impossible that they were giving him carte blanche to behave in an uncivil manner on any article or talk page, and personal attacks, no matter how one tries to backpedal from them, are uncivil. Tvoz |talk 03:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, no one is supposed to have carte blanche to make uncivil attacks. I deny that I have been uncivil to you, but if you wish to lodge a complaint in that regard, this is not the correct place. The incident you mention had nothing whatsoever to do with abortion or pregnancy, as specified in the ArbCom decision.

Moreover, I hardly think that parenthetically mentioning your party affiliation is a heinous insult. I did not mean to imply that you have any conflict of interest, and I'm sorry that you took offense.

Please keep in mind also that you have used the Mitt Romney discussion thread to insinuate that I am engaging in a "campaign" for Romney, and to accuse me of attempting to "bury" material about Romney. Hardly AGF.

And it's also ironic that the person who started this section (OrangeMarlin) has a nasty habit of viciously attacking anyone who says a word in my defense, without penalty. He told User B that he couldn't wait to watch User B being fucked, and more recently accused User Evil Spartan of antisemitism. In what universe is it believable that parenthetically mentioning your party affiliation is even remotely comparable to the type of language used by OrangeMarlin (who incidentally also falsely accused me of being a Christian).

I am growing weary of these frivolous requests for ArbCom enforcement. Can we start the new year in a more cordial manner, please?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say "heinous insult" - I didn't say insult at all, nor do I think it is an insult to be called a Democrat. I also did not say you suggested a conflict of interest per se - that would be someone who worked for a candidate, or perhaps who openly supported and contributed to one, and neither applies to me so there is no possible COI on my part that you could accuse me of. What I said was that it was a gratuitous (because I was not in that discussion) personal attack to suggest, as you clearly did, that my editing was biased based on an article off-wiki that said I was a Democrat (a point about me that you raised to the reporter, by the way, according to him, in addition to an incorrect characterization of who you think I am supporting in this election). Yes, I link to the article on my user page, but it bears no relevance to my editing or to an exchange you were having with Qworty. It stretches believability to say that you were just letting him know that there was another Democrat editing the article - it's laughable in fact. You were attacking me, and that is what I am responding to here. You're very good at backpedaling, but that doesn't change the facts, and it's exactly the same thing I and others have raised about you before. It would have been a good outcome of the arbitration if you stopped doing this, whether or not they focussed on your editing of political articles, as I said above. Finally, I didn't open this thread, so the fact that it has nothing to do with reproduction is beside the point - I am being talked about, and it's my right to give my view on this. I did not comment on the rest of the points raised here. Tvoz |talk 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You can write all you want here, Tvoz. It seems to have become an open forum. But note this: I did not tell any reporter what your political affiliation was, because I did not know what your political affiliation was. You told the reporter and the world that you are a Democrat, and yes I'll mention here that you're a Democrat. It's not an "attack". What was an "attack" was you using the Mitt Romney discussion thread to insinuate that I am engaging in a "campaign" for Romney, and to accuse me of attempting to "bury" material about Romney.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there some reason why this section has not been closed? I'd appreciate it. Everyone, it seems, has had an ample opportunity to say everything they wanted to say, and then some.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• All that's missing is some kind of acknowledgement from you that aggressively pushing your POV, and edit warring in any form, is decidedly not smart, and that you'll make an effort not to do so in the future. See Thatcher's comments above. Under the circumstances, and given the restriction already placed on you, it would be wise to voluntarily undertake a 1RR restriction and take things to the talk page, especially if they are as unambiguous as you say. It is apparent that your edits will cause friction simply because it is you making them, so this should have the effect of removing any appearance of a continuation of the problems that led to your restriction by ArbCom. Acceptance that you need to moderate your behaviour is, I think, all that's required for non-involved parties to close this and leave everyone be. Certainly nobody wants to rehash the ArbCom case here. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy, you can say a million times that I have aggressively pushed a POV, but that does not make it true. I dare say you have no idea what my POV is. I do not recall encountering you in any article discussions. I do not recall seeing you present any diffs during this discussion. If you want to keep piling on here, then why not (GASP!) present some evidence?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, all this response says to me is that you are determined to nitpick and not accept that your editing style, combined with your known biases and your past history, makes for a problem. Unless and until you accept that some people will take issue with what you do simply because it is you doing, it, and realise that they have at least some justification in this, per the ArbCom case, I foresee a turbulent time for you. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs, Guy.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Taunting? Not the wisest place for it, this. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not meant as a taunt. I only mean that if people want to say I'm doing something wrong, then please say where.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the Ferrylodge drama and disruption continues apace, hardly missing a beat, or an opportunity, since this month's RFAR ruling. My question to the committee: How much disruption is the community expected to take? FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is the Fetus article, I hope that it will be noted that Guy/JzG has ultimately agreed that the images that OrangeMarlin deleted (without discussion) are actually acceptable images.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And, if the issue is the Mitt Romney article, I hope that it will be noted that, although Odd Nature reverted a huge number of my edits (without discussion), all of those edits have been restored by consensus after discussion.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• FerryLodge is subject to an Arbcom restriction on matters related to abortion. For all other topics, the normal dispute resolution methods apply and reports here are inappropriate. If you believe that FerryLodge should be under a broader sanction, you should probably approach Arbcom again, which overturned the previous community ban and imposed a restriction on abortion-related topics only. Thatcher 06:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist/Martinphi

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Both are blocked for 72 hours. See final report at bottom. RLEVSE, 22:34, 30 Dec 2007

I think this diff where ScienceApologist says:

It would be nice if TimidGuy would cut out that crap, but I'm not holding my breath. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And:

:* No Obviously original research. Can we bend the rules? I think WP:NOR says no. Anthon01 (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't trust disruptive agenda-driven editors to Wikilawyer. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly violates his restriction in the recent ArbCom , and he should be blocked . He has made many similar edits recently, but just the one should be enough (see What the bleep do we know.

On this, go see the list of editors he's talking about, if you want proof he's assuming bad faith:

"Note that I object to the enfranchisement of more than a few of the people voting "no" as obvious disruptive editors and POV-pushers"

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that a concerted group of paranormal POV-pushers including User:Dreadstar, User:Timid Guy, User:Nealparr, and User:Martinphi are holding this article hostage in order to prevent meaningful information about the subject matter to be presented to the reader. I have therefore added the NPOV tag to encourage broader realization of these problems.

How can you narrowly define the "subject" of the article to simply be the movie and nothing else? If we write an article about the theory of relativity, does that mean including a reference to a biography of Einstein is original research? How ridiculously fatuous can an argument get?

I'm claiming that you are unduly weighting the article towards the idiots at Ramtha who think that quantum mechanics explains their woo-woo beliefs.

Some critics who are in the know don't bother "calling them" on their inaccuracies because they are too stupid to warrant comment.

Calls good faith disputes POV pushing and claims it's a conspiracy.

"Right now you seem to have nothing more than a vague promotional agenda."

Note here that he's dealing with a lot of people who attack QW:

"This seems to be alternatively grasping at straws and nitpicking. I will point out an error in your estimation"

In case that isn't enough, look at these- I believe that all of them are incivility, and add to the pattern. However, some of the individual examples are certainly not block-worthy:

Yawn:

Accuses of dishonesty:

Dismisses offended user as having taken what he said the wrong way, then adds "Caio," since the user has said he's leaving:

"I'm not going to let you insert that spin into the article."

Note here how he uses "Thank you" to mean "deal with it, asshole."

"You cannot impose the goals of your organization onto Misplaced Pages. Thank you."

Same meaning of "Thank you:"

"Obviously, this person has a conflict of interest in this case and while their concerns are noted, cold fusion is ultimately subject to the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages, not the wishes of the LENR-CANR librarian. Thank you."

In case you're in doubt whether he uses endings like that for incivility:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Parapsychology&diff=171504507&oldid=171504397
Thanks, that's sweet of you. XOXOX ScienceApologist 20:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Parapsychology&diff=172175012&oldid=172174673
I love you all,]

"Hi, the same guy who quick-failed force is making a stink at the talkpage and GAR again. "

"Maybe you're upset that I wasn't involved in the fake "consensus" discussion that you had with yourself, Levine, Anthon01, and a number of other alt-med POV-pushers. You seem to have a very short fuse and have hit upon me as someone you want to take down."

"While there are others involved, Levine tends to act as the main instigator and ring-leader with many of the other alt-med POV-pushers simply parroting his responses back."

"Since the review of QW doesn't mention QW's advocacy of peer-review we cannot link the two. Get it?"

"Usually when Martin doesn't like a series of edits I can tell I'm on to something good."

He must be on to something very good indeed. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have notified ScienceAplogist of this. Cardamon (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, it might be useful to cut that list down to things you think are obvious violations. Your interpretation of "thank you" to mean "deal with it, asshole," is remarkable, given how many times you have had to petition administrators and arbitrators to reinterpret your own similar statements. (Remember the incident where you stated you would actively disrupt Misplaced Pages, then backtracked via personal pleading on an arbitrator's talk page?) I am clearly 'partial', but this list is really unconvincing to me. Hence, to try to be neutral, my suggestion in the first sentence. Antelan 08:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, I think you should consider Antelan's point. Mixing genuinely problematic posts with spurious examples like the one he pointed out might tend to make your case less persuasive. Dlabtot (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No. First, I never backtracked, that is just Antelan mis-representing me (don't want to make a personal attack here), as he has in I believe 3 ArbComs by now- don't believe it. And no, Dlabtot, I'm not going to pare down the list (or at least not for that reason)- it is clearly separated from the worst to the less bad (I originally was going to post only the first diff, which is more than enough in my opinion). Nor am I going to take back the obvious: it is obvious, to any unbiased observer, that when you use "thank you" like that, what you mean is "deal with it ." Misplaced Pages should not be such a legalistic place that people overlook the obvious because a dictionary definition might not give you quite the same answer. To do so is just to give the clever free reign to do destroy the wiki.

Actually, that "thank you" is much like the "I love you all" sign-off he used once on the Parapsychology talk page. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd pare this list down, too. Why are you making everyone wade through so much muck? This diff seems apologetic. This one might be a bit terse, but hardly incivil. And after reading through the diffs outside the "not block-worthy" section, it seems a few of them don't seem to be attacking the other editors, anyway, but instead try to discredit others' ideas. It looks to me like you're grasping at straws to get him blocked from editing these articles. -- RG 10:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to comment that neither attacking another editor's arguments, nor criticizing another editor's edit patterns, is by itself a personal attack. Cardamon (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish to add for consideration a bad-faith revert comment, with an unfounded accusation of WP:COI, while initiating an editwar on Conversion disorder. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You're one to talk, Guido. I'm not sure why anyone should take your accusations of bad faith seriously if you're not willing to assume a little good faith yourself. -- RG 13:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Right back at you. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? -- RG 13:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I lost that assumption somewhere around the time that this character accused me of being an 'advocate of pseudoscientific nonsense'. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some of the diffs Martinphi provided really didn't need to be added here. However, I also feel there is merit to some of them, such as the first one about "crap" and the questioning the good faith of others. I would also like to that I recently warned SA twice about continued incivility, once on 20 Dec, see User_talk:ScienceApologist#Close_to_arbcom_violation, and on 27 Dec, see User_talk:ScienceApologist#Incivility. In both cases he responded on my talk page and questioned my good faith. For the record, iin both cases I issues these warnings in response to editors asking me for help because they felt SA was being incivil. Since I agreed with them, I issued the warnings. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My own warnings:

on 20 Dec, link: User_talk:ScienceApologist#Close_to_arbcom_violation, diff, "shitty, shitty pseudoscientific garbage"

on 27 Dec, link User_talk:ScienceApologist#Incivility, diff "ulterior agendas"

Some of the links from above that are incivil:

on 27 Dec, diff, "how ridiculously fatuous can an argument get?"

on 27 Dec, diff, "because they are too stupid to warrant comment."

on 30 Dec, diff, "It would be nice if TimidGuy would cut out that crap, but I'm not holding my breath"

Some of the links from above questioning good faith:

on 14 Dec, diff, "fake consensus discussion"

on 27 Dec, diff, "holding this article hostage"

on 30 Dec, diff, "I object to the enfranchisement of more than a few of the people voting..." (meaning some people can't participate?)

— Rlevse • Talk • 15:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And let's not forget that Martinphi is one of the most zealous promoters of fringe and pseudoscience content, has a long history of provoking SA, is absolutely not a neutral party in this dispute, and by saying SA "must be on something good" is as guilty of incivility as SA ever is. I have a problem with at least some of the selective quoting above - for example, "because they are too stupid to warrant comment" is very clearly notaimed at any Misplaced Pages editor, but at the reliable sources who decline to comment on the pseudoscience and other twaddle in a film that sources describe as pseudoscientific propaganda, nonsense, and "for the completely gullible"; ditto the full quote "How can you narrowly define the "subject" of the article to simply be the movie and nothing else? If we write an article about the theory of relativity, does that mean including a reference to a biography of Einstein is original research? How ridiculously fatuous can an argument get?" - it is not even a straw man, it was genuinely being suggested that the article keep clear of rebuttals of the fallacious arguments and logical disconnects in that film. These are also somewhat old. "You obviously didn't do a very good job in my estimation, which is why I want you to explain what I consider to be a poorly considered position" is perfectly civil. A much better result would be for more editors to watchlist these articles and leave SA less isolated in defending NPOV against the advancement of fringe theories and outright pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This particular case is about ScienceApologist, if you have a concerns about Martinphi, please file an enforcement case here. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don;t think it is. I think it's about a small coterie of POV-pushers trying to run off one of the major obstacles to them skewing content away from the mainstream. Quite a few of the quotes Martinphi cites above seem reasonable to me, for example the one explaining the addition of the NPOV tag, I think that was a fair assessment of the situation. Luckily we've now found more sources for the critique and the non-mainstream editors seem to have accepted that it is reasonable to call it, in the words of the American Chemical Society, "pseudoscientific docudrama". Guy (Help!) 16:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of the edits are indeed not too bad, when considered individually in isolation. For instance, one of the "thank you" quotes might not have made it in. I assume admins are allowed to take things in context. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Martinphi himself is under arbcom probation for disruptive editing. If this "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" attempt to damage his adversary doesn't constitute disruptive editing then I don't know what does. He should be blocked accordingly, irrespective of whether any sanctions are placed on SA. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My original intent was to use only the first diff. I was advised to use as much evidence as possible. If you don't like that way of going about things, then at least know that it wan't my idea, though I do think the diffs are evidential in their context. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please file an enforcement case on Martinphi if you feel it is warranted. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No. The arbcom case jointly considered Martinphi and SA; the conduct at question here revolves around interactions between Martinphi and SA. To pretend that we can make a clean division between the two participants is untenable. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Raymond on this. Martinphi's presentation of this request looks to me very much like disruption, at the very least querulousness. POV-pushing is rampant, and SA is not the one doing it. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The diffs are almost entirly not about me and SA. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This case is about SA's incivility and arbcom restrictions, not the merits of the points being made in articles. If Martinphi has been incivil, feel free to list them here. So far, none of you has listed any incivility by Martinphi. I myself will go through Martinphi's recents edits later today. As I do see merit in the point that SA and MP are very intertwined here. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. As a point of information, remember that Martinphi's sanction was for disruption rather than incivility. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to be fair to both sides, but I don't have time to look into Martinphi right now. I will do so later today. If anyone wants to post his diffs here that are relevant, I'll surely look at them. — Rlevse • Talk • —Preceding comment was added at 16:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This page is for arbcom ruling enforcement. It is (for better or worse) not about judging the original or ongoing dispute per se, or who did what, but about enforcing specific decisions. The issues brought here all relate to complex or heated disputes that ended up at arbcom, where conduct was examined, and where specific rulings and requirements were then made. The question here is "did user X visibly breach an arbcom ruling".

Even if the request were in bad faith or one-sided (as suggested), the user's conduct is what is at question, not the motive of the bringer of the request. The diffs will speak for themselves, or not. If there are diffs showing SA being uncivil, then he breached a ruling requiring him to be civil. If diffs exist showing a personal attack, then he breached a ruling about personal attacks. If diffs exist showing a bad faith assumption, then he breached a ruling about bad faith. Questions such as "was he provoked" or "how bad was it" may influence how that's handled, but the bottom line is, arbcom rulings and restrictions are not trivial, and are imposed in order to be complied with. There is an expectation that the case having gone all the way to arbcom, blatant breaches of that final ruling will result in the appropriate remedy applying.

Finally, to address the side-concerns, relevant restrictions on Martin are likewise serious too. If Martin also breached his rulings, then you might want to retitle this section "SA/Martin", and ask that question of both. If he didn't but his actions were still problematic then you may want to address them separately, or indeed seek extension of the ruling if it was inadequate. The issue here and now is not that SA is wrong to expect a high standard on articles. It is that he was in an arbcom case where it was ruled that his means of doing so, via incivility, attack or failure to give reasonable good faith, was required to cease.

FT2  16:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone keep in mind this is an arb enforcment page, not a dispute resolution page. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Pursuant to the comments above that ask for a simpler complaint: On the What the Bleep talk we were having a civil conversation about the lead in which we were talking directly about the content, not each other. SA chose this opportunity to switch discussion from the actual article and comment that what I say needs to be taken with a grain of salt because I "don't really seem to have that much familiarity with scientific literature". Following that he posted an a new section called "NPOV concerns" and complained that editors are holding the article hostage and that I was apparently one of these editors.

Here it seems that some editors think that it's perfectly reasonable to attack other editors (in my case totally without reason) to discount their opinion on the article. That may be true, we're probably all guilty of it at some time or another, and I can personally take SA repeated demeaning comments. But in the arbitration he wasn't just warned to stop making personal attacks, he was also warned to stop being disruptive. Switching the focus of the conversation off the actual article and onto other editors is disruptive. In the very least we have to stop talking about the article and start defending ourselves. This is especially disruptive when (again in my case) it is totally without merit. He only lumped me in there because I was disagreeing with his argument. At that point I'd barely even done any edits on the article or talk page, much less held it hostage. Making rude comments about others is something a lot of us do periodically, but SA does it all the time. It appears to happen any time he's in a content dispute.

(Assuming that snide, demeaning comments about editors actually are OK:) I don't care if he gets blocked from the article. I don't know if that is completely necessary. But I would appreciate someone directing him to stop being an asshole all the time. --Nealparr 17:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't let your frustration at someone else's behavior goad you into uncivil behavior of your own. Dlabtot (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I would ask the administrators evaluating this complaint take a good look at SA's RfC at Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!? and his responses to those who have commented on that RfC. I would submit that this is disruptive behavior. Dlabtot (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Pls provide diffs and/or quotes. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry; there are so many that I don't think I'm up for the task. The point is that he argued with and harangued every RfC respondent who disagreed with him. I think this is disruptive to the RfC process. If it's necessary for me to provide diffs for my comment to be considered then I humbly withdraw my comment. Dlabtot (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to withdraw it, but diffs make it much easier to work the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Should we put a notice at the top of this page that "this is not part of the Misplaced Pages dispute escalation process?" I'd have been tempted to say "dispute resolution" but the lack of any attempts to resolve the dispute seems to leave that out of the running. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Uh, re "the lack of any attempts to resolve the dispute seems to leave that out of the running" I happen to be looking at edits from SA and MP right now. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sure. And the two of them have not shown any attempt to resolve their disputes, largely because their disputes arise from irreconcilable philosophical differences. SA gets away with slightly more because he is, in every case I've seen, supporting the mainstream view. MP, on the other hand, has in recent times become a master at querulousness. The problem with SA would, IMO, not exist to any meaningful degree were it not for the ever-zealous promotion of fringe nonsense by various parties. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't care much, but I think that is a personal attack if you don't provide diffs. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Has this not struck anyone else as exceedingly ironic: Martinphi interprets SA's "thank you" to mean "deal with it, asshole," stating that it is "obvious to any unbiased observer," and further, that "Misplaced Pages should not be such a legalistic place that people overlook the obvious..." Immediately after that interpretation bit, he says "that is just Antelan mis-representing me (don't want to make a personal attack here)." I am compelled to point out that there is an even more obvious interpretation of that statement - when you say that you have avoided making a personal attack, the attack is implied. The parenthetical sort of tips you off to the synonym for "misrepresenting" that he was thinking about. In the end, my point is that Martinphi's history with SA seems to make his actions abhorrent to Martinphi, while Martinphi participates in the exact same behavior that he dislikes from SA. I really don't think there's anything meritorious here beyond Martinphi's constant goading of SA. Antelan 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In other words, Antelan, since you have just asked specifically, I didn't want to accuse you of being a liar, because that would have been to assume that you knew that you were not telling the truth. Thus, it would have been a violation of AGF, and a PA in calling you a liar. While I did think what you said mis-represented me (though you did have some point), I didn't want to go over the edge into a personal attack.

Now if you have some actual diffs which say that I engage in the same behavior problematic behavior as SA, please present them here. I'm sure you could come up with something I did wrong, but it would not show such a consistent and deep pattern. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And I don't really want to accuse you of lying and grasping at straws and misinterpreting dozens of diffs to see what sticks so you can give someone you disagree with another strike on his block log, as that would be "a violation of AGF, and a PA," and, you know, I don't want to go over the edge ...

Yeesh. Stop doing that. -- RG 22:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Apply enforcement to both

These edits show breach of the ruling. Specifically, , , show incivility and , , do not assume good faith. I have therefore applied the enforcement and blocked User:ScienceApologist (SA) for 72 hours.

I have also looked at the wider dispute to see why SA acted this way and noticed User:Martinphi (MP) also breached his ruling. In filing this report, MP included several diffs that did not show incivility or lack of AGF by SA, such as , which MP interpreted as "deal with it, asshole"; and also this was not needed . There is also the incident where User:Thatcher warned MP about provoking SA on, see (this diff). Therefore, I have also blocked MP for 72 hours.

Regardless of the merits of their positions, both sides have an arbcom ruling that this is not the way to go about them and the community has deemed "you just dont do it that way". I beseech both SA and MP to work to resolve their diffences in a civil and non-provocative manner. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia edit wars

Can somebody please have a good look at Ireland101 (talk · contribs) and Tsourkpk (talk · contribs) and apply Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary sanctions as seen fit? These guys have been fighting a bit too much for my taste recently. I'd do something myself, but I'm probably a bit too non-uninvolved by the Arbcom's current standards. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A little more to go on? Which article(s) should we look at? Thatcher 14:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically every article Ireland101 has been editing lately has been in an edit-warring situation with either Tsourkpk, Megistias (talk · contribs), Kékrōps (talk · contribs) or other Greek users. See Vergina Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Bryges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Rosetta Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Macedonian dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Macedonians (ethnic group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Hellenization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and so on. It's all over the place. Difficult to say who's picking these fights, whether it's Ireland editing tendentiously everywhere, or the others stalking him (as he evidently feels), or both. Also see the current complaint thread at WP:ANI#Ireland101 and Tsourkpk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out Future Perfect. In almost all of those situation those editors/meat puppets were reverting my edits with no explanation.Ireland101 (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What would you think about a 1 revert per week per page limit for Ireland101 and Tsourkpk? Thatcher 15:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've put Ireland101 on revert parole and logged it, holding off for now on other actions (which I believe are needed). Kékrōps (talk · contribs) is also coming up reverting in quite a few of those page histories listed above. Thoughts? Moreschi 17:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why I was put on revert parole considering that I always include edit summaries and have no history of edit warring. I have only reverted vandalism and thought that was the purpose of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. Ireland101 (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what the CVU is for. Evidently your definition of vandalism is a little off. Moreschi 17:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• In response to Moreshi's request for "thoughts", reverting is not an endorsed editing method anyway, so 1RR is probably the least restrictive sanction we can think of, certainly less so than page or topic bans, and I would think it could be liberally applied, although with either an expiration date or a promise to review (after 3-6 months perhaps). Thatcher 17:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think I'd agree with revert restrictions here. I'd like to see them applied on both sides though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Anyeverybody (AKA User:Anynobody) and Barbara Schwarz

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

• Since this does not appear to require enforcement at this time, the report is closed and the philosophical discussion can continue elsewhere. Thatcher 04:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am respectfully asking for enforcement under Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS, specifically Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision#Article probation.

Anyeverybody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (AKA Anynobody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or AN) is violating the intent of the DRV on Barbara Schwarz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (a Scientology-related article) by creating WP:POVFORKs of deleted materials. He added a long bit to Neutral reportage, here, giving clear undue weight to Schwarz. He did the same at Freedom of Information Act (United States), here, in which he put her on a par with J. Edgar Hoover and Ronald Reagan. He apparently recreated the deleted article as a disamb page which was then undone and the page protected. He is engaging in WP:BLP-violating discussion of her mental state on a user talk page (User talk:Tilman#Barbara Schwarz and Scientology).

I am well familiar with AN's tenacity when he takes an interest in a subject as I was once the object of his attention and it took an arb ruling to get him to back off (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision#Anynobody prohibited from harassing Justanother). I am respectfully requesting that an administrator please inform AN is no uncertain terms to back off on Schwarz. It is of note that the DRV page itself was blanked. AN should stop with the undue attention to Schwarz. This project has made its decision as regards her and he must abide by it and not try to find ways around it. As far as his POV forks, I have fixed most of the one at Neutral reportage as that one was a no-brainer but I would appreciate if an uninvolved party would take care of the undue weight at Freedom of Information Act (United States). Thank you and Happy New Year. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're going to have to take this up with the closing admin IronGargoyle and ask him if outsourcing information from Barbara Schwarz to other articles is considered acceptable under the terms of his close of the deletion review. In my opinion, we need clear evidence that Anyeverybody's edits are considered disruptive before restricting him from Schwarz-related material under the terms of remedy 7. Picaroon (t) 15:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of the DRV comments suggested that Schwarz could be added as an element to related articles. It seems reasonable to include her at Freedom of Information Act (United States), although the content still must meet BLP and I am concerned about the length of the material. Neutral reportage is more of a stretch and is probably not needed, and the recreation of Barbara Schwarz as a dab page definitely falls outside the scope of the DRV (although the page was first recreated as a redirect by another user). Thinking about this some more. Thatcher 15:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I see that the point I was going to make has already been pointed out by Thatcher, that the deletion review concluded that there was not enough for an entire article (not all mention of her from Misplaced Pages).

I don't want to get into too much detail about the merits of each article (that's what their talk pages are for) but feel that an overall explanation would be germane here. Regarding the FOIA section, it may seem a bit lengthy but all information comes directly from the cited sources. As to neutral reportage, one of the sources for the FOIA section was sued by her for simply reporting both what she and the government employees said about one and other. If anyone takes a moment to read it, the fact that it doesn't judge her one way or another comes through. More than one secondary source discusses the implications of her claims against the Tribune had the court found in her favor.

Anyone still having access to the old article may notice that there was also much more questionable information featured in it which hasn't been "reincarnated". (Nor would I support such a reincarnation without better sources.)

Also, doesn't changing consensus apply to this article as well? For example if Ms Schwarz was in the news for a new notable reason, surely a prior deletion review would be at least rethought and her article could be recreated. (Unless/until that happens the most I could see using it for is a disambiguation page. Whether one agrees or disagrees that this individual deserves mention in two separate articles, I think we can all agree that if anyone is mentioned in more than one article but doesn't have their own, a disambiguation page is just another "no-brainer".) Anynobody 00:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you were going to write an expansion of neutral reportage to illustrate how the doctrine has been applied in practice, there are presumably many fine examples that do not require delving into the personal problems of a possibly disturbed person. This is one of the facets of both BLP and NPOV#Undue weight. Choosing to highlight the specifics of this case over others would be inappropriate. The situation is possibly different at the FOIA article where Mrs. Schwarz is in a more unique position. However, I caution you to respect both the principles as well as the letter of the BLP policy, and note that even the FOIA article, becomes by extension, a Scientology-related article by its mention of the subject, and if your behavior is disruptive you can be banned from it (or even from mention this person) under terms of the article probation. Thatcher 01:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't planned on expanding beyond what was already there, but in regard to your assertion that other cases must illustrate the doctrine better, I'd be surprised. If you read the SLT article it simply presents both sides without judging either. So essentially she felt that the article ruined her life because people talk about it when they see her and call her crazy. They (the Tribune) didn't report any untrue information and lets face it, people think her story is crazy, and she essentially blamed the Tribune for it. Meaning that if, for some reason the court found for her, papers would be reduced to a policy of "If you can't find anyone to say nice things about people, then don't say anything." Other defamation suits I've heard of, there was at least a question as to whether the paper was defaming a subject.

I understand your warning about consequences for being disruptive, but could you please explain just how adding sourced information to relevant articles about a person is disruptive? (Shouldn't there be some edit warring or heated talk page debate to even begin talking about disruption?) Anynobody 03:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to write a good article about Rape without describing any individual victim or their case, no matter how interesting. Likewise, it is possible to describe the doctrine of neutral reportage without referring to individuals or, if it improves the article to describe a case illustrating the doctrine, it is better to use a case that does not turn on the behavior of an individual. Part of BLP is understanding that just because we can say things about a person that are true (or at least properly sourced) but also hurtful to that person or their family, doesn't mean we should. This person appears to be notable from the angle of her FOIA activities, but I doubt she is a typical or even notable test case on the neutral reportage doctrine. (I noted for example no law review articles that mention her; meaning that she has not been written about as either a notable FOIA filer or as a notable neutral reportage case.) To answer your other question, it could be considered disruption if, for example, you continued to add information about this individual to multiple tangentially related topics and ignore concerns expressed by other editors. So far we are not in that realm. Thatcher 04:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Since this does not appear to require enforcement at this time, the report is closed and the philosophical discussion can continue elsewhere. Thatcher 04:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have a question/point about an aspect of possible enforcement. I can totally see where adding information about this subject to articles without sources either at random or in remotely related subjects would be disruptive. That's not what I am doing at all, and it sounds like you think the general tone of the accusation is not far from true. For example please look at User talk:Tilman#Barbara Schwarz and Scientology if you haven't already.

• I asked if he knew of any German sources discussing her unique situation where religion is telling her to stay away from what could actually help her, is mentioned.
• He provided what he knew of.
• I politely advised that while I agree with his assessment of the sources I also didn't think it was enough to source a WP:BLP claim on. Moreover I stated what type of source I thought would do to meet notability regarding her and Scientology.

Essentially I just want to be emphatic that I'm not trying to game the system in any way. (Hell if I was, would it be a good idea to tell Jimbo about it?) Anynobody 06:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33

Giovanni33 was placed on revert parole (once per week, per article), as was I. On the Jung Chang article he reverted 08:33, 31 December 2007 after a break of 1 week and 10 minutes (the previous revert was made 08:23, 24 December 2007. Such a tiny time difference indicates he is gaming the system. Furthermore I think reverting during the holiday season on Christmas and New Year's Eve is an example of him trying to get a revert advantage by hoping a user such as myself would be too busy to notice what he was doing. If he was acting in good-faith I believe he would have waited until after New Year's and made sure everyone was around - he didn't even leave a message on the talk page asking if people were there or not.

As can be seen on the talk page Giovanni33 frequently reverts, does the minimum to ensure he doesn't get banned by leaving a comment "explaining" his revert and then disappears for a week before he starts this again - his lack of discussion of the matters prior to reversion can be seen by his recent edit history.

He is disrupting the article by refusing to co-operate with other users. He continues to push his POV, despite the urges of myself and User:Fullstop for him to self-revert and gain consensus for his desired changes first. I gave him more than 24 hours to at least respond to our comments before reporting him here, but he has made no response. John Smith's (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

JohnSmiths makes several false claims here. First, though, if I am guilty of gaming the system by reverting shortly after a week, then so is JohnSmiths, as he has done exactly this, as well. Its hypocritical of him to come here to file a complaint about me, describing a behavior, he is currently engaged in. Also, he if he correct about me editing against consensus, then he would not need to revert himself---he would leave it to someone else to revert me. But, instead he is the only one who reverts me. Again, if my edit represents something against consensus, then surely, someone--anyone--would revert me, not JohnSmiths. Lastly, his comments here and on the talk page consistently demonstrate a violation of policy: the failure to assume good faith. Hence, his statement that I must be waiting for holidays, Christmas, New Years, in order to make my edit, "hoping that he would be too busy to notice what I'm doing, etc" Classic bad faith. Of course, it didn't occur to him that just maybe that is when I have some free time, in order to edit? Of course not. Lastly, he says I'm not cooperating. Also untrue as proven by my discussions on the talk page. And consensus is not establised by just two users--himself and Fullstop, esp. when they don't address the problem I've raised about bias.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, you are misrepresenting the facts. I reverted having tried to discuss the issue with you on the talk page first - you decided not to interact. I also reverted several hours after a week. You reverted 10 minutes after a week. So, quite clearly, you are trying comparing apples with oranges.

As for someone else reverting, some users never like to revert unless it's vandalism. Whether people revert or not does not reflect consensus.

To accuse me of bad faith because I believe you acted in bad faith is a rather poor attempt to deflect criticism. Unless you wish to claim that the only free time you have over the next couple of weeks is on Christmas and New Year's Eve, there was no need to push the issue right now. As I said quite clearly you could have continued this matter after the holiday period. To not even attempt to see whether people were free on the talk page is not acting in good faith given how busy a lot of Wikipedians are at this time of year.

Finally, I don't see leaving a comment, reverting and repeating once a week as you have done as being a sign of co-operation. I have said this time and time again - if you cannot spare the time to post, say so and highlight when you are free to talk. Yet for some reason you keep refusing to do this. Why do we have to run around you? John Smith's (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)