Revision as of 17:48, 10 January 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.

User Forsena

Arbcom case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. User:Forsena appears to have violated User_talk:Forsena#Notice_of_editing_restrictions in that he called another editor vandal and extremist ] Gerardw (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's probably worth noting the editor he is commenting about gave a generic level 4 warning and before giving a level 4 NPOV warning. In other words the editor in question, gave a generic warning that used the 'vandalize'. However that certainly doesn't justify this comment which is way over the top. I'm inclined to give a 1 week topic ban from articles related to the Balkans. PhilKnight (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Poeticbent

Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Eastern European disputes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

As a result of this case Poeticbent was subjected to this remedy:

Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary

This remedy was supposed to prevent repetition of the violations stated in this FoF Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Poeticbent, namely Poeticbent has treated Misplaced Pages as a battleground.

So far this remedy was not enforced and as a result we have: WP:BATTLE, WP:AGF, not to mention grave MOS violations: Is that an invitation to the usual POVed revert war? It must be... and personal attacks like this .

Enforcement of this remedy is urgently required so that content dispute resolution based on dialogue and rational arguments would be possible. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the rant in the template, as that's clearly not on, but otherwise this isn't at emergency level. Is Durova mentoring Poeticbent? If so then please forward all future complaints to her. Moreschi (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If Durova is an official mentor, when indeed we can consider this issue closed. Could anyone confirm this? M0RD00R (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem here, other then MORDOOR trying to use the ArbCom remedy, twisting its intent, in order to prevent his opponent from being able to revert him. I'd like to advise MORDOOR not to revert war.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Response by Poeticbent

Can someone please point out to the above user, that frivolous use of WP:AN/AE noticeboard for the purpose of trying to gain an upper hand in an ill-fated edit war, is unacceptable? M0RD00R with User:Malik Shabazz have been removing all my third-party, reliable book references as well as my impartial and rational contributions to this article in order to foster their own highly inflammatory political agenda based on ethnic divisiveness. – Understandably, my stress level has gone through the roof, because no Wikipedian can do anything of value in such toxic environment.

Examples of repeat removal of book references, in order to prove a POV

1. new paragraph with 2 book references removed by M0RD00R because it painted Poles in a positive light
2. same new paragraph and book-links removed by Malik Shabazz
3. same paragraph reverted by Malik Shabazz yet once more
4. another paragraph with book citation reverted by M0RD00R because it spoke of Polish compassion for the Jews
5. same paragraph removed again by User:Jayen466 unknown before
6. another background info and book-link reverted by Malik Shabazz because is spoke of food shortages
7. same new info removed by M0RD00R
8. same info about food shortages removed again by M0RD00R
9. blind, blanket revert by M0RD00R of my three consecutive edits with several new book references
10. more background info reverted by Malik Shabazz for the same reason
11. another background info with new book reference reverted by M0RD00R because it spoke of WWII annihilation of the Polish people

The stalking goes on.... Here's another article I contributed to recently

1. here again M0RD00R reverts my new paragraph about 1945 food shortages in Krakow including 2 separate book citations
2. for the second time, M0RD00R reverts my new paragraph with refs about food shortages and instead, adds a quote from a Stalinist Apparatchik - writting to Moscow - about alleged violent attitudes of Poles

Please note, most of the above reverts of contributions by 3 different users by M0RD00R and Malik Shabazz, were falsely summarised under WP:SYNTH while in fact, the conclusions drawn in quoted books written by different scholars are commonly accepted as facts by the scientific community.
P.S.: Keep in mind also that the ArbCom case, mentioned above, is being used by M0RD00R exclusively for the purpose of discrediting my most recent contributions. Although M0RD00R was not found at fault by the ArbCom, he's bound by the decisions reached at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes because he is an involved party along with Malik Shabazz. Therefore, I suggest that both M0RD00R and Malik Shabazz be presented with some sort of preventive measures for their blanket revert-warring against Polish Wikipedians including myself, at: Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946 and at Kraków pogrom. Thank you. --Poeticbent talk 19:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is all dandy and fine Poeticbent if not one thing. This board is not for discussing content disputes, especially when Your concerns are addressed long time ago at relevant talk page , the same talk page you didn't bother to contribute a single time so far despite being urged by uninvolved editors to do so . But now as Durova is showing signs of interest in this case, I do hope that dialogue will be much smoother from now on. Apparently I have failed to express basic WP policies like WP:SYNTH clearly enough - I thought it was entry level knowledge that if you can reference fact X, and you can reference fact Y, it does not mean that by referencing those two separate facts, you've got referenced complex entity XY. Because in order to prove that XY (not just separate X, and separate Y) indeed exists, you need to provide reference stating "X has a relation to Y, and they go together". Why do we need to go through this every single time, time and time again? It is so freaking simple I thought. But well. Where I have failed, maybe Durova, or any other mentor, that ArbCom decided must be assigned to you, will have more luck. So take care, and see You at Durova's talk page as been advised by Moreschi. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Ombudsman and tendentious editing against consensus

Ombudsman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Ombudsman was placed on permanent probation for agenda-driven editing of medical-related articles. There was a prolonged discussion of the Cure Autism Now article that resulted in a decision to merge and redirect. Ombudsman tried to act against consensus and undo this redirect several times during this period, but seem to let it go. Today, he started up again, undoing the redirect and de-archiving the talk page to make new remarks on old threads. Suggest a topic ban and/or a block to remedy the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I was contacted regarding this situation. I declined to take administrative action given prior content disagreements with Ombudsman and suggested to Beeblebrox that he bring the case here. That said, I completely support a page ban in this instance. Ombudsman's editing has consistently been tendentious and agenda-driven since the ArbCom finding, but he generally hops around from page to page and edits infrequently enough that pursuing individual page bans is generally more trouble than it's worth. In this case, Ombudsman is repeatedly undoing a merge (, , , , ) which had a broad talkpage consensus. Check the typical edit summary here. This is the sort of thing that the probation was designed to prevent. MastCell  06:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of best practice, please notify a user when they've been brought up on any administrator's noticeboard. (Notification done). I'm reviewing the complaint now.--Tznkai (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh - I probably should've done, but for some reason I feel unwelcome at User Talk:Ombudsman (, , , ). MastCell  07:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You or Beeblebrox, or anyone else - not a huge deal.--Tznkai (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidently, Beeblebrox was not merely leveraging the questionable behavior of a former incarnation of the ArbCom to divert attention from collaborative production of encyclopedic content. It brings into question the assumption of Beeblebrox's good faith, when he heads straight over here crather than discussing the matter on the CAN article talk page, since he has gone beyond merely diverting attention from editing by lunging provocatively into the realm of procedural meddling. In the first place, the previous ArbCom incarnation (several iterations removed) had absolutely no business taking the dubious case of a newbie. The newbie apparently wanted to safeguard his extremely pov evisceration of the biological psychiatry article. Since absolutely no effort was made to resolve the npov 'dispute', the former ArbCom was acting against community consensus by accepting a case that lacked even a hint of discussion, just the newbie's unprovoked -- and thus surprising and quite chilling -- threat of seeking ArbCom intervention. The newbie apparently was overly impressed by involved National Health Service editors, who were attempting to browbeat another editor over an NPOV tag, which the NHS editors provocatively, repeatedly, and quite in error removed. The ArbCom did admit that the tag was appropriate. Beeblebrox's redirecting of the CAN article -- within a mere eight minutes -- indicates little or no attention was given to the renewed attention to CAN's historical significance brought about by media focus upon CAN's sponsorship of the premiere of Joey Travolta's Normal People Scare Me; Beeblebrox's reliance upon the questionable and abusive behavior of a long since passed ArbCom incarnation is reminiscent of the newbie's reliance upon pov-pushing by NHS editors with obvious conflict of interest issues. The attempt here on this page to leverage a previous ArbCom's abuse of both discretion and administrative sanctions is quite an over-reaction, one evidently bereft of the notion of taking time to think over the situation. Beeblebrox suggested discussing the redirect, but after an attempt at renewing the discussion was made on the CAN talk page, he removed the discussion via redirect. Sadly, he has now diverted attention away from editing, an all to common Wiki acculturative experience, as well as closing down discussion of edits on the appropriate CAN talk page. Ombudsman (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ombudsman, can you try that again with a little less vitriol, assumption of bad faith, content dispute and a whole lot less tl;dr? Also the edit warring done here is particularly unimpressive. Page is protected for the time being while I sort out this mess.--Tznkai (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thus far I am seeing an underdeveloped but extent consensus and excessive stubbornness by Ombudsman on this article - any particular reason you couldn't just work on this in your userspace instead of edit warring? Would it be to much to ask for everyone to stick a fork in this and revisit with cooler heads in a week?--Tznkai (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• That would be fine with me, but I would note that Ombudsman, knowing he was making a change that was likely to be controversial, is the one who should have gone to the talk page before making changes, and that the proper procedure for re-opening archived discussions is to start a new thread with a link to the archive, not to undo the archiving of two month old stale threads and just start adding to them. I don't see the point in splitting this article back off, but if it is to be done it should be discussed at Talk:Autism Speaks, not the inactive talk page of the merged article. The reason I brought this here instead of Ombudsman's talk page should be evident. Whatever he thinks of the ArbCom decision, it exists and has not been rescinded, and this is exactly the type of behavior it was intended to curtail. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

BRD would also have been satisfactory in my opinion - but clearly the discussion is lacking - and Ombudsman, the onus is on you to start and continue high quality discussion when your "bold" edit reverted - in this case the Autism Speaks page would have been a much better place for it, and even if that wasn't an issue this comment here doesn't cut it. Misplaced Pages works by convincing others you're right.--Tznkai (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin I saw a comment about this on MastCell's talkpage and looked into the history a little. Both Ombudsman and Beeblebrox were edit warring, but Ombudsman was doing this in defiance of a clear talk-page consensus and in breach of his probation on tendentious editing of medical articles. Unless anybody here objects I will ban him from this article and talk page (now a redirect), and state that any further edit warring on this or other medical articles will bring a lengthy block for disruption. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I do object - I want Ombudsman to have at least one more opportunity to respond before we continue discussing sanctions.--Tznkai (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to agree with Tim here; the reason folks end up on this page is because they've been given all the warnings and chances in the world. This isn't the forum for handing out additional chances, its for determining whether or not restrictions were broken and if so, giving the appropriate sanction. Clearly, this was a violation of Ombudsman's restrictions - there's no doubt he's aware that this behavior is unacceptable, so further coddling isn't particularly helpful. Shell 17:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

See below.--Tznkai (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I expect a clear statement that he will abide by his ArbCom restrictions and avoid edit-warring, otherwise there is little possibility of avoiding similar situations in the future. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Its pretty much what I was looking for myself - or perhaps an argument that could change my mind. Either way, I think any user deserves the chance to be off wiki for a few days and have a chance to make some sort of statement before sanctions are leveled. The immediate problem has been stopped, so I think patience is a virtue here.--Tznkai (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with this in principle, but please consider that Ombudsman's MO has been to disrupt an article for a little while, then drop out of sight for a few days or weeks and pop up and disrupt another article. It's been an effective way of circumventing his probation, in some senses. It doesn't really bother me - I stopped taking him seriously a long time ago, and I generally don't bother reporting his various breaches of probation since it's easier to ignore him. But I don't think it's fair to continually expose innocent users (in this case, User:Beeblebrox) to Ombudsman's abusive editing, when the ArbCom remedy was meant to curtail it. MastCell  19:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if he doesn't give a satisfactory response on this page within a few days I'll go ahead regardless. From your comment, would you recommend a broader remedy than a ban from a single article - such as a permanent 1RR restriction? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really a neutral party here, since I've had numerous previous content disagreements with Ombudsman, and I consider that his editing long ago passed the point of being a major net negative to Misplaced Pages. Simply cleaning up the huge walled garden of abusive POV forks he created on autism and vaccines required an extensive time/effort commitment from User:Eubulides. That said, I think a broad topic ban from articles relating to vaccines and autism would be most appropriate. I would suggest that he be restricted to talk pages in those areas, and subject to further sanctions if he abuses that leeway. I know this sounds relatively harsh, but the track record here more than justifies it. If his editing were slightly more concentrated in time, I think he'd long ago have been banned. Perhaps relevant is the fact that he was banned by Jimbo Wales at one point; he was unbanned because Miltopia (talk · contribs) vouched for him (!) and out of a "desire to show forgiveness where possible". That's my 2 cents, again as an explicitly involved editor. MastCell  20:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Frequency of autism and looking at this editor's previous actions I'm now leaning towards an indefinite block. This editor has no ability to work constructively with other editors, no understanding of the requirements of the NPOV policy and has had a second chance and blew it. Why waste more of everybody's time? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe he can edit constructively in other areas. I'm imposing a topic ban on all pages relating to vaccinations and autism, broadly speaking. In addition to a 3 week long block.

• God, I'm getting old. Even a few months ago I would have permabanned this guy...ah well. It gives him a chance to edit in areas where WP:TIGERS won't get in the way. If he doesn't take it we can just ban him. Moreschi (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an article and talk page ban then? And the 3 week block is a bit over the top if you're going to topic ban him.--Tznkai (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, both article and talk page. I'm fed up with talkpage flamers who waste everybody's time with pointless wittering: that detracts from the encyclopedia indirectly just as much as edit-warring does directly. I suppose the block is not strictly necessary, but you never can be too harsh with people like this, otherwise they never get the message that we're not bullshitting and this really is their last chance. Moreschi (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call, but since I'm getting both old and cynical, I'll be surprised if this is the last we hear from him. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Naturally it won't be, but the next step is obvious. Moreschi (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Abtract v Alastair again

Abtract (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Alastair Haines arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

I note that Abtract adopts an appropriate method here in a number of significant ways:

1. he uses the talk page before editing
2. he actually attempts to make a case
3. he actually cites a source.

All these three basics are unprecedented in the editing of Abtract (and Ilkali) in their interactions with Alastair, and are a refreshing change for the better. Unfortunately, it will be noted that the edit still includes a personal attack on Alastair, and ignores answers already provided by Alastair—uncivil characteristics of the vast majority of all posts by Abtract (and Ilkali) over a period of close to nine months. Additionally, ArbCom have asked Abtract to edit anywhere he likes at Misplaced Pages, just not in places that interact with Alastair. Abtract's edit above breaches the standing arrangement. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And some more. There's no rush to deal with this, soon I'll just start reverting as required. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Background: Alastair's first (of 344) edits (and 64 talk page posts) at this article was at 19:04, 25 October 2007.

Abtract's first (of 11) edits (and 15 talk page posts) at this article appears at 05:07, 23 November 2008. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Alastair, you hadn't edited the article since the 18th - both you and Abtract had been involved in editing the article before that. This doesn't seem at all like the earlier problems, especially given Abtract's use of the talk page. You're also really reaching to call that a personal attack or claim that its any kind of interaction with you. Since you're also under restriction from the same case not to make assumptions of bad faith, you're skirting dangerously close to a block of your own. Go edit productively; stop worrying so much about Abtract. Shell 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a pretty obvious violation of Abtract's restrictions. Looie496 (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's over the line. Since the last two week long blocks don't appear to have made the point, I'm going to make this block two weeks in length. Shell 02:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both Looie and Shell for looking into this, and ArbCom for providing a simple system to deal with things.

You're quite right too Shell, actually, other than interacting with Abtract, I've hardly touched that article for a year. I don't even maintain it much because there are quite a lot of others who watch the page and revert obvious vandalism.

However, what is less obvious to casual passers by is that I'm very deliberate in my contributions at Wiki. I keep them mainly to supporting the work of friends, new additions, or maintenance where there is steady erosion (rather than obvious vandalism), for predictable emotional rather than source-driven reasons.

The last is the kind of work that Abtract, Ilkali and others have been seeking to undermine by lobbying to poison the well. Unless one is willing to become familiar enough with the content issues, some of which are abstract, and occasionally counter-intuitive, all that it looks like is a petty squabble or personality clash. Indeed, that is all comes down to in regard to objections raised to screen the erosive edits that still continue.

There are still several issues associated with this case needing attention. The discussion and actions above are an appreciated donation of time that should hopefully play a part in resolving that unfinished business, when I have time myself to give it priority again. Once again, thanks. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Need some other opinions - Abtract appears to be indicating that he has no intention of abiding by the ArbCom restrictions that prohibit him from any contact with Alastair. At this point, there doesn't appear to be much left but to indef block Abtract's account until such time as he's willing to play ball. Any thoughts? Shell 19:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Pseudoscience

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.

Dicklyon has been banned for a week from the Eric Lerner article and talk page by Shell Kinney. PhilKnight (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions I hereby ask for administrator help in dealing with a conflict with User:Dicklyon at Eric Lerner. This user added some content, and in so doing ended up inserting scientifically inaccurate wording, innuendo, POV-statements, and against-consensus unduly weighted opinions into the article. When I tried to fix the problems accompanied with an explanatory note on the talkpage , he reverted me with a very rude edit summary and accused me of "POV spin". When I then removed the edits entirely per WP:BRD and tried to explain why we should do this on the talkpage, he reverted me without discussion. Please tell me, how am I supposed to deal with this kind of behavior? I'm trying to be civil and calm, but the user seems to have an obvious grudge against me and is extremely unresponsive.

ScienceApologist (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have detailed my reactions to SA's edits on Talk:Eric Lerner#Big bang section -- what_happened?. Funny that he would accuse me of content with innuendo, given his edits here. I'm just trying to restore some balance to this article that he's been picking away at for months. Dicklyon (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the "rude edit summary", it was "all the ScienceApologist 'improvements' are designed as SPOV spin;" this was genuine; all of his edits were to promote the scientific point of view over the neutral point of view, which I had already said on the talk page; it's not rude, nor personal.

As for the "reverted me without discussion", I admit I could have waited until after I had composed the talk-page details on his edits; it took a while. Dicklyon (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's painfully obvious from Dicklyon's statements on the talkpage that he has decided to take on the role of fringe promoter. He's reintroducing reviews that were excluded due to their dubious reliability. He's trying to insinuate that the Cosmic Microwave Background is controversial. He's stating as fact that Paul Davies made a "misattribution" in his panning of Eric's book. He is insisting that Lerner refuted every one of the errors that Wright pointed out with Eric's model, when that is plainly not true. He's rewriting the article from a sympathetic point-of-view rather than a neutral point-of-view. And he's obviously convinced that there is some sort of "SPOV" that I have adopted that I'm trying to insert. That is what he uses as justification for edit warring. We need someone to help. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of my changes promote Lerner's fringe ideas; they merely tone down SA's attacks on them. I'm not a believer or proponent of the ideas, so why would I promote them? I'm not "stating as fact that Paul Davies made a 'misattribution' in his panning of Eric's book;" rather, I state as fact that Lerner's rebuttal focused on Davies making such a misrepresentation (as supported by the cited source). And I'm not "insisting that Lerner refuted every one of the errors that Wright pointed out"; I just didn't like the way SA's edit seemed to imply that he agreed with some of the criticisms; I'm open to working on this. I agree with SA where he says "We need someone to help". Dicklyon (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Dicklyon, edit warring isn't an appropriate way to get disputed changes across, rather, you should have attempted to form a consensus on talk. Clearly your edits were designed to swing the article in a particular direction and they appear to have in some cases, actually misquoted sources or severely spun the material. You've also made edits that over-rode earlier consensus developed on the talk page; while consensus can change, its important to show that it has actually changed. I would strongly suggest you self-revert and use accepted dispute resolution mechanisms from now on. Shell 10:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I take your first point about how I should have proceeded. Of course my edits were designed to swing the article in a particular direction (toward neutrality, away from SA's topic bashing), but I didn't actually misquote sources or spin the material (unless you count the wording details that I've sinced fixed, which I had no idea would be seen as biased). As to the earlier consensus, I can't find what's being referred to. There was an earlier fight about quoting reviews, but no consensus that I can find in the talk archives; if you see one, can you point me toward it? Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've notified Dicklyon of the ArbCom restrictions. If problems continue, then I'll give him a 1-week article ban. PhilKnight (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems are continuing. See . We seem to work together well for a time, and then he goes all tit-for-tat on me. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

We're in the middle of discussion of why you find a review in the Chicago Tribute less reliable than the blogs of the cosmologists that the subject is criticizing. The talk page section "Tags" has the discussion that includes my clarification of the reason for adding these tags, which was because you objected when I removed the one the Chicago Tribute; is that what you mean by "tit-for-tat"? Dicklyon (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So essentially you are saying that a Noble Prize winner for the Discovery of the CMB is not a reliable source because he's now retired and that experts who publish on the internet are not a reliable source? I think you need to read some WP:SPS and think carefully about whether that's really the content claims you want to make. Because if they are, there's really no question but that you are acting exactly like a POV-pusher for Lerner. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The last time I talked with Arno Penzias, quite a few years ago, he explained that he had gotten out of cosmology immediately after the CBN discovery (meaning he never got into it, really, just picked up some signals). He's still a clever guy, and the NYT is a reliable source for his opinion, but you were wanting to put dubious tags on non-expert opinions in newspapers, etc., so this seems worth re-evaluating, too. It's not a conclusion, but a question, as the tag says. Same with the blogs; sure, they're expert cosmologists, and their blogs are reliable sources for their opinions, but we've re-opened the discussion of what kinds of reaction sources we really want in the article; I didn't think that just the one you didn't like should be tagged. Do we really want the article to be dominated by the reactions of the scientists that Lerner criticizes? Dicklyon (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You're now essentially parroting a lot of commentary from various Lerner-supporters over the ages with the novel inclusion of some unverifiable personal contact you have had with Arno Penzias that you now use to cast light aspersions in his general direction. I was fine with the way the article was before you showed up. I don't particularly want to see it fill up with criticisms, but WP:WEIGHT demands that we let the readers know how marginalized Eric Lerner and his ideas are. As for "swamping it with criticisms", it seems to me that if an idea has been roundly criticized from a number of different sources, a good encyclopedia will let the reader know. We are not here to provide a soapbox for Lerner's ideas, which is essentially what you are doing by adding content that has been roundly criticized by cosmologists. Our choices to me seem clear: either mention the stuff that Lerner believes and then discuss (with an eye on WP:WEIGHT) the fact that it is considered totally wrong by anyone in the know, or we try to summarize the situation briefly as we did in the previous version of the article. What we absolutely cannot do is what you propose and that is have a little protected page to expound upon all the views of Eric Lerner while including some mealy-mouthed caveat at the end of the article to the tune of, "Oh yeah, by the way, no one who knows anything about astronomy believes this b.s." No, that kind of editing defies almost every content guideline we have here at Wikiepdia: WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:ASF, WP:UNDUE, WP:REDFLAG, etc., etc., etc. I've been telling you this for some time any you just keep coming back trying to argue that we need to let the page "explain Lerner's ideas". Well, Lerner's ideas are explained by the best sources around right now, and you seem to think that it's "swamped". That's POV-pushing, pure and simple. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As for working well together, I haven't seen it. The only thing that works is to keep adding stuff to the article to try to balance the debunkings that you vigorously defend, which has made quite a mess of it. You appear to have had a real ownership problem here since 2006, and won't let the article be about its subject without swamping it with criticisms. Dicklyon (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You are under the sad misconception that "balance" is what is needed. But "balance" at Misplaced Pages is covered by WP:WEIGHT: something you seem quick to ignore. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, please see this diff with snarky edit summary. Dick keeps poisoning the well and making the environment very hostile. Will someone please help? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was bad; snarky and WP:POINT. I apologize. But I hope you got the point (see ). Dicklyon (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As for "problems continue", yes; how can it be otherwise when one tries to improve an article that you've dug in on? If PhilKnight decides he needs to block me for your behavior, I'll have to live with that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've worked well with many other editors in the past. Please try not to overgeneralize. Also, the last sentence is again very snarky. "block me for your behavior" sounds to me like you've already decided to be a martyr. I really was trying to work with you. I don't know what more to do at this point. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope you can imagine how much restraint it takes for me not to just tell you what I feel about that statement. Dicklyon (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Judging from how personally acrimonious a tone you've adopted with me at Talk:Eric Lerner I can only imagine. I hope you aren't editing under duress or working out some kind of personal vendetta you've developed against me. I will assure you I have none against you. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm fine, thanks; I do manage to work in a few non-tendentious edits in between dealing with you. Dicklyon (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Continuing disruption

An outside user removed POINTy tags of Dicklyon which Dicklyon responded with by removing a tag that is under dispute at the talk page with an extremely snarky edit summary: .

"finish John Nevard's removal of pointy tags on sources reliably reporting reviews" is snarky? Dicklyon (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It's tit-for-tat editing. You're deleting a tag that we're actually discussing on the talkpage just because John Nevard removed tags that he determined you placed on in violation of WP:POINT. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

He's also declared, more or less, that he has decided unilaterally that cosmology is a field "with peer-reviewed journals but arguably not experimental rigor" and continues to make personal statements about me.

It's not a decision, it's a opinion. It's not in article space, and not disruptive. It's on a talk page reacting to your proposal; am I not allowed to express an opinion that concerns you there? Dicklyon (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there you have it. Dicklyon's personal opinion is, essentially, that cosmology arguably lacks experimental rigor and seems want to try to make sure this fringe viewpoint is accommodated well on Misplaced Pages. It's a classic case. Where are the administrators who will act? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What's more he has now commenced to adding unreliable sourcing tags to another marginally related article , in seeming violation of WP:PARITY. He seems to have followed his way over there due to comments left on my user page by User:Phaedrus7, where I advised him that the sourcing was appropriate since David Talbott's ideas are all self-published. It seems as though Dicklyon is really trying to prove a point here.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's a point, it's that you push a POV wherever you can; but I was more trying to address it than to prove it. All I did was to tag the sources that I believe need to be reviewed for reliability. That's not nearly as disruptive as what you've been encouraging Phaedrus7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to do there. So what's with all the whining? Dicklyon (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's okay for you to keep making antagonistic statements about me? This is beginning to feel like baiting. Can we please get some help? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I sure hope so. Dicklyon (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And now he's stalking me to WT:NPOV: . "ScienceApologist is all about swamping the articles on fringe or pseudoscience ideas". ScienceApologist (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WT:NPOV was not an appropriate place for a personal comment, so I took it out. Thanks for repeating it here, though; the rest of my sentence and paragraph are worth reading, too, to get a clearer idea how our interpretations of NPOV differ. I hope this discussion is not out of order. Dicklyon (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear that Dicklyon didn't take the hints about curbing his behavior and has now extended this dispute into other articles and talk pages. At this point I'm giving him a one week ban from Eric Lerner and its talk page. I've also warned him that following editors, making personal comments and engaging in other pointy or disruptive behavior will likely lead to being blocked from editing. Shell 00:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, but why doesn't the other guy have to curb his, too? Dicklyon (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Because yours is the only behavior that's been problematic. If you're confused about that, you may wish to re-read the above discussions again. Shell 02:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I get it that you see it that way. Obviously, I don't. SA's behaviours continue to collect lots of evidence of abuse at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science/Evidence, and he has aggressively pushed his POV, which is what has led to my pushback; I haven't done anything not provoked by him (and sure I agree I shouldn't let him provoke me, but I did). Dicklyon (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, in your Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements/Shell_Kinney/Questions_for_the_candidate, you answered that "I would recuse myself from any case that involved ... ScienceApologist." Is that statement no longer operative? Dicklyon (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that if you re-read the list of arbcom appointees, you will find that Shell Kinney did not become an arbcom member. Therefore, her statement about what arbcom cases she would recuse herself from if she became an arbcom member is completely irrelevant to the present situation. Cardamon (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for that clarification. I see that she is acting as an ordinary admin, not as an arbcom member, and this arbcom enforcement action is not an arbcom case, so the fact that she has a prior history of siding with ScienceApologist in content and policy disputes does not prevent her from siding with him again now. I will respect her ban from the Eric Lerner article and talk page, even though I'm itching to respond to the latest... Dicklyon (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

fact that she has a prior history of siding with ScienceApologist - OMG if you believe this canard then you need to do some more reading then... Shot info (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Slowly removing foot from mouth ... yeah, I see her history with SA is not what I first interpreted. In fact she posted an eloquent description of his behavior on Eric Lerner that is as true today as it was two over two years ago: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Statement_by_Shell_Kinney; so I'll just have to accept that for some reason she found my edits to be more disruptive than his this time. Dicklyon (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

SPA on Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family

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

Exxess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Digwuren arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

User Exxess, a single-purpose account, is engaging in much incivility at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (2nd nomination) (now at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (2nd nomination - voided)). This is just the first of many rambling, uncivil post against me and other editors he has made there. Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions, I ask that he is placed on restriction, and if he continues with violating WP:NPA and turning this AfD into a battleground, appropriate sanctions are taken. It is also possible that he had and is engaging in sock puppeting and vote stacking (both AfDs he took part in saw votes from IPs and other SPAs), see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Exxess. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that I took the highly unusual step of voiding the 5-day old discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (2nd nomination - voided)) because of the highly toxic uncivil rant that it had become. Within hours of re-opening a fresh discussion page, the party named above came to the new discussion and began another rant of uncivil accusations; these accusations were not aimed at any one editor, so perhaps he was trying to be better. I found it necessary to take the hghly unusual step of censoring him by redacting a portion of his statement. I do not think that admins should (or should have to) void consensus-forming discussions or redact statements in them; but this user's conduct made these steps necessary to allow the process to proceed. I am not familiar with the Digwuren case, but if it is indeed related, and this is a user who can not conduct himself properly in the project, then I would support the application of more stringent sanctions on him./her. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've notified him of the editing restriction. If there are further problems, then I'll give him a short block. PhilKnight (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My so-called incivility has nothing to do with anything above, and I resent unproven accusations of sockpuppetry and vote stacking. This first deletion nomination failed fair-and-square because the users voting could see the inherent notability of the subject. This is in regards to a peculiar family of immemorial nobility. Immemorial nobility in the 18th century represented 5% of the population:

SEE: http://books.google.com/books?id=MnwmMOWK-PsC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136

That alone makes them notable, but, furthermore, the article on nobility states the term originally meant those who were known or notable.

How one argues the obvious is beyond me, hence my so-called "incivility"; but, the administrator Piotrus above seems to have framed the debate in terms of myself being some champion of an upstart noble family seeking fame and glory on Misplaced Pages. This is coming from an administrator, Piotrus, with two arbitration cases against him.

Yes, I will concede the original article had surmountable problems, but the subject is notable, proof being the third-party sources who took the time to research and publish their findings, books I found widely available in libraries. I've provided a summary of their work on Misplaced Pages. -- Exxess (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The question of whether the article subject is sufficiently notable for inclusion isn't dealt with on this page. If necessary you could file a request at deletion review. PhilKnight (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

De-azerbaboonifier

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

De-azerbaboonifier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

New user De-azerbaboonifier has created St. Sargis of Gag in relation to a dispute over at Qazakh Rayon. This is very likely to be the same person as Azerbaboon (talk · contribs) as raised recently at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive501#Azad_chai. Whoever this is, it is an inappropriate username and when used to create articles, I think they should be deleted and recreated by someone with a touch more class.

I am raising it here as the last time it was raised on ANI (see link above) there were suggestions it was a straw-puppet, i.e. a pro-Azeri person doing this to cast the Armenians in a negative light by way of Fear, uncertainty and doubt, which is a brave new twist and a new level of gaming - it is getting quite messy and the stakes are rising. If possible, this needs to be stopped. John Vandenberg 06:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Article deleted and account blocked. Jehochman 14:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)