This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Khoikhoi (talk | contribs) at 04:11, 2 August 2008 (→User:Parishan). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

Edit this section for new requests

User:Parishan

Parishan (talk · contribs) has been constantly resorting to incivility on Talk:Blue Mosque, Yerevan. Instead of discussing the disputed topics in question he resorts to making not so civil remarks on users he calls "opponents" (Misplaced Pages is not a battleground). Comments such as: "Astounding! :) People have no flipping idea whatsoever of what they are talking about, yet they choose to go on with their... agenda thinking they are experts in the field. Without hurting your feelings, neither of you realises how ridiculous this looks." or ". I would appreciate it if you refrained from wasting both of us's time on your baseless original-research speculations emerging from your appaulingly poor knowledge of the structure of Turkic languages. Manipulation-schmanipulation. The cobbler should stick to his last." (both found here: ). I had asked him to tone it down on July 5 but just yesterday he continued with: "...with your asinine original-research speculations" . Webster defines asinine as: 1 : extremely or utterly foolish <an asinine excuse 2 : of, relating to, or resembling an ass . At the very least this warrants a warning per the discretionary sanctions clause of AA2.-- Ευπάτωρ 22:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• User was a party to AA2 and AA1, was not named in remedies in either case. The editor has not been put on formal notice previously. I see Khoikhoi imposed sanctions under the case related to the article in early July; I'll go jog his elbow. GRBerry 00:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page. Didn't place him on the restrictions since Parishan is largely a constructive contributor, but I warned him that he could be placed on said restrictions if he continues to make similar comments. Khoikhoi 04:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist and water fluoridation: incivility and POV pushing

Hi. I was recently called a "wacko conspiracy theorist lunatic" by ScienceApologist (diff) because I've pointed out that there is a current controversy over the fluoridation of water, as evidenced by, among other things, a 2000 BMJ systematic review which was ""unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide"., and the research covered by a 2006 National Research Council study, which noted studies suggesting that fluoridation increases the leaching of lead and Chinese epidemiological studies inversely correlating fluoride with IQ. In 2007 SciAm ran an article where it said expert opinion may be changing. Anyway, today SA told me "xpert opinion may be changing on whether tinfoil hats can protect you from those mind-control beams too" (diff). He's made the rather pointy move of renaming the old water fluoridation opposition article to water fluoridation conspiracy theory, despite the fact that the article has nothing about conspiracy theories, and cut it from 34k to 11k. I don't want to engage in an edit-war, but there's clearly some heavy POV pushing going on here. II | (t - c) 21:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There was clearly no consensus for ScienceApologist's page move from Water fluoridation opposition to Water fluoridation conspiracy theory, so I have undone the move and recommended that SA go through WP:RM for any controversial moves. His above diffed comments to ImperfectlyInformed were also clearly uncivil and a violation of his ArbCom restrictions. I recommend a block for disruption, both for the "mind-control beams" comment and for the WP:POINTy page move today. --Elonka 22:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have dealt with ScienceApologist extensively, including investigating them for sock puppetry, and counseling them after I set up Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. It is my experience that sequential blocks, especially with this editor, are not effective at correcting habitual incivility. The blocks only cause more outlandish statements when they return, and encourage wikilawyering by opponents. We want the incivility to stop, absolutely. (SA, please read WP:BAIT one more time!) A more effective strategy at controlling these problems is to identify them to the editor, and request refactoring, or to simply redact incivil remarks. Perhaps try this first. SA has done many positive things for Misplaced Pages. We should not be so quick to block vested contributors. Jehochman 23:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why I should waste my time with asking him to refactor repeated and obvious incivility. If the incivility was not obvious, then refactoring seems reasonable, but I personally don't get an emphasis on refactoring when the incivility is obvious. Refactoring does little, and half the time the refactoring is done in a snide way. Now, maybe an apology would be in order, but I'm not expecting one. II | (t - c) 23:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think SA trusts me enough to take the advice I just left on his talk page. Incivility is a definite problem, I agree with you, but this situation calls for a lighter touch, I think. If you have further issues with SA, feel free to let me know and I will do my best to help. Jehochman 23:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did not violate his restrictions? Isn't that the real issue here? Whether or not SA was uncivil? If he was uncivil, in violation of his restrictions, why does that require 'a lighter touch'? I came here to report him for a different violation and I found this report as well. When is enough, enough? Dlabtot (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit that I don't have much hope. His incivility is little in comparison to the blatant battleground behavior, POV pushing, and absurd comments which I have to deal with every time I encounter SA. Anyway, SA knows that those comments should be refactored, and should have been refactored immediately after they were made. Asking me to spend more of my time asking him to refactor, and seemingly accusing me of baiting him, is mildly insulting. I frequently hear that SA makes good contributions, but it seems like he spends much of his time making edits carefully calculated to start edit wars and pointless fights. I don't see much in the way of good contributions. II | (t - c) 23:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You need not spend your time. You can certainly bring reports here, or you can ask an uninvolved editor to mediate informally. I have offered. Rules are important, but we do not enforce them for their own sake. Every time we need to think, what is best for Misplaced Pages? Jehochman 23:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a third report on this very page, but that one was filed by SA about me. However, when the truth of it all was revealed and the admins began to discuss punitive action against ScienceApologist, he quickly "withdrew" his request and no action was taken. -- Levine2112 23:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

<-- I am saddened that so many folks have provided clues to SA, but SA still does not moderate his rhetoric. Perhaps we should request a revised sanction. Blocks have not stopped the disruption. SA related disputes occupy far too much attention on this board. Maybe somebody can propose something better. Jehochman 23:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are few editors who have done more to define down the minimum level of civility required to participate at WP. WP will somehow manage to soldier on should we ask SA to take an enforced break of some length to reconsider his methods. Ronnotel (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Short blocks don't appear to work to get SA to stop being incivil. Asking him to refactor isn't going to work - the disruption has already occurred. Is there any way of restricting him so that someone else has to filter his comments before they get made visible? (The reverse of the flappers of Gulliver's Travels.) I'd be shocked if there is a way to do that. I see three remaining options for dealing with this disruption - long term blocks, long term topic bans, and punting it back to ArbComm. ArbComm is clearly struggling about incivility in both of the related open cases right now, so who knows what would happen if we punted back. I hope somebody else has a good idea here; do nothing appears to be the worst of all possible solutions but I can't see any real reason to favor any of the possible solutions over any other. (Edit warring is so much easier to deal with...) GRBerry 02:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should ban ScienceApologist from the areas of the encyclopedia where he has difficulty. Perhaps he would remain involved on other topics, and in time, learn the benefits of cooperating in spite of disagreements. SA's violations of decorum make it much harder to resolve those editorial issues that he would like to see resolved. I feel that we should go back to ArbCom with a proposal. Jehochman 02:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and we have conducted topic bans on editors with far less stacked against them (Kossack4Truth comes to mind). Do you think this is a suitable and acceptable course of action? seicer | talk | contribs 03:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If SA were subjected to a set of topic bans, it would be a victory for POV pushers, and a bad day for Misplaced Pages. Cardamon (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, SA's incivility is a major obstacle to us dealing with POV pushers. SA provides endless distractions and cover. Jehochman 04:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with jehochman, SA's cronic name calling, editwarring, and forum shopping to try and remove 'opponents' is a major distraction from dealing with those whose main goal is to insert the 'truth' into wikipedia. I have cut my participation in the contentious and fringe sciences articles because I don't have the patience for the battleground SA promotes. I'm not sure about a topic ban, I havn't thought it through enough. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thread moved here from WP:ANI

Note: The comments below up until 06:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC) were moved here from WP:ANI so as to consolidate the discussion.  Sandstein  06:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

i don't quite understand why an editor is removing warning template from another editors page, and in the same time threatening me with a block.

User:ScienceApologist removed A LOT of sourced content from water fluoridation opposition article.

I placed a tag on SA's page, and it was removed with a 'harassment' accusation from User:Jehochman.

216.80.119.92 (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess WP:DTTR applies here, but I imagine such a large change should have been discussed on talk page first. As far as Jehochman's actions, I am not sure. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. Both editors notified of thread. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP persists in issuing a vandalism warning to ScienceApologist over what is a content dispute. Any edit made in an effort to improve the encyclopedia is not to be considered vandalism. There is no requirement to discuss edits beforehand. If somebody objects, then discussion is a good idea. The IP is abusing vandalism warnings in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. That is not cool. Jehochman 05:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh. I tend to disagree. User SA has a history of bad behavior. Removing dozen sourced paragraphs is far from an effort to 'improve the encyclopedia'. In addition, I didn't even participate in the content dispute, but have just noticed SA's unjustified deletion of the content. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

While ScienceApologist's large-scale edit to Water fluoridation opposition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (and page move to Water fluoridation conspiracy theory) may not have been vandalistic in the strict sense of the term, it was disruptive and did not reflect the good editing practices we expect from regular editors. I find it interesting that a few hours after ScienceApologist's changes were reverted, the new account LOGANA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) turned up, whose only edits consist of continually reverting the article to what looks much like ScienceApologist's preferred version. LOGANA is now blocked without opposition as a vandalism-only account. I would be interested to know whether a checkuser on LOGANA turns up anything in particular.  Sandstein  06:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist had already been brought up on WP:AE for that edit. The IP is now forum shopping, which is itself disruptive. We don't solve problems by instigating huge dramas that disrupt multiple pages. Over at WP:AE I have already suggested rather strict measures for dealing with SA's disruption. A checkuser would be an excellent idea, and if it reveals sock puppetry by SA, that would be grounds for even stricter measures. Jehochman 06:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, most new users don't find their way to AN/I so swiftly. It may be worth checking whether this IP is somebody logging out to evade scrutiny of their own actions. It is not a good idea to act on accusations without first checking the reputation of the accuser. Jehochman 06:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there any objections to opening a RFCU on LOGANA and closing and copying this thread to WP:AE?  Sandstein  06:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

First part already done via Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist. I agree with merging this thread to WP:AE if you like. Jehochman 06:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The result of checkuser was  Unlikely that LOGANA was a sock of SA. Jehochman 11:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• The IP editor is indeed someone who has been in conflict with ScienceApologist before. Thatcher 11:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

would it be appropriate to notify the ip/other editor or caution them on appearance of inappropriate use of hosiery to avoid detection, responsibility for actions? I'm unsure. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Tired of the gaming

I am very tired of this little game where a gang of single-purpose, POV pushing accounts politely bait and goad ScienceApologist until he loses his cool and violates decorum. That is not what Misplaced Pages is about. We should be trying to help each other, not setting traps and then running to WP:AE and WP:ANI to get other users banned. The current restrictions on SA seem to exacerbate the problem by encouraging polite trolling. I think we need to revisit these sanctions and come up with a better plan. For instance, we should take a dim view of editors in a content dispute with SA who seek to use this board for tactical advantage. SA for his part needs to maintain decorum, or stay out of the "hot zone". Should that prove impossible, the Misplaced Pages community will have to impose external restrictions. I note that Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions has recently (July 28, 2008) provided a new tool for administrators to control disruption. Perhaps the careful application of discretionary sanctions on SA and those who are trolling SA would help resolve the matter. Thoughts by uninvolved parties would be especially appreciated. Jehochman 11:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

For instance, one week topic bans from pseudoscience and natural science articles for SA and the IP (and its main account) might help control disruption. We need to be especially even handed to the combatants on both sides, lest one side be encouraged to troll the other. Jehochman 11:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Brief blocks and/or topic bans are not the answer. ScienceApologist seems to take pride in the number of times he has been blocked, banned, or had to go through ArbCom cases. To address that kind of disruption, I recommend that an indefinite block be imposed, until he gives his word to change his behavior. With most other editors, a brief block usually gets the message across that behavior needs to change. But with ScienceApologist, he has received the message, but deliberately chosen to ignore it. I am also unaware of any location where he has acknowledged the authority of the ArbCom rulings about him. To my knowledge, he has never actually promised to abide by them. Until he personally gives his word that he is going to change his approach, he should be removed from the project. If that means we lose some of his good edits along with the disruption, well, okay, we can live with that. On the flip side, by his aggressive approach, we are suffering even greater damage, both from the good edits that we are losing from good editors that he is driving away, and from the bad example that he is setting towards other newer editors, that "this is how you get things done on Misplaced Pages." But that is not how things should be done, and until SA acknowledges the community's will on this, he should not be permitted to cause further disruption. --Elonka 13:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am reminded of this quote:

"I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind." --Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51 5 February 2008

We need to be mindful of just who would be impacted by such a block or action. We might lose a vested editor in science, but the benefits, in my opinion, far outweigh the cost. Look at how much time has been wasted in the two most recent AE cases, on top of the countless AE, ANI, AN etc. filings. Or the editors who have stopped contributing because of the messes. And so on. seicer | talk | contribs 13:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, it is a game being played by both sides of the dispute, not just one side of it. For an example, take a look at this ANI thread started 7 hours ago, where a member of the set of POV pushers to which SA belongs baited and goaded an editor with the other point of view and then ran to ANI in hopes of getting a ban. The game has been going on for a very long time (I've seen evidence of it going on more than a year ago) and has become an entrenched tactic of both sides of this POV dispute. I think we may need to start handling this rigorously the way we do the various nationalistic disputes - which are much better managed - any editor on either side who is disruptive gets dealt with firmly. We've given too many N chances to too many editors and tolerated too much disruptive behavior for too long. The long standing patterns of behavior in these topic areas are so poor that any new editor coming into it will come to see it as our accepted, approved style of behavior unless they have a grounding in good behavior from work elsewhere. There are some editors with reasonable behavior patterns in this mess, but it is hard to see them due to all the noise and heat being generated by those whose behavior patterns are not reasonable. GRBerry 15:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that the nationalistic disputes are between people that have fundamentally opposed but arguably legitimate points of view. In this case, we have editors that want to treat haunted microphones and useless nostrums as being legitimate. The reason the dispute has lasted so long is because we tolerate such nonsense, and people have gotten frayed nerves from having to constantly deal with it. We need to stop pretending that it is a dispute between two sides that needs to be mediated and arbitrated. If people add statements supporting homeopathy, paranormal occurrences, and similar quackery and nonsense as true, block them immediately, and escalate to bans quickly. The problem will never go away for the same reasons that vandalism will never go away, but it can be managed if it is dealt with the same as any other effort to damage the encylopedia is.
Kww (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I really think GRBerry makes very good points here. Editors in this dispute on both sides are just as convinced of their infallibility as those in the nationalistic disputes. And again, just like nationalistic disputes, both sides have editors who's behavior is acerbating the dispute. Over time, some editors or groups of editors have become adept at skewing our dispute resolution processes to gain an upper-hand. They lash out at each other and anyone who tries to intervene; they waste enormous amounts of volunteer time. Since the pseudoscience case has been updated to include similar provisions as the nationalistic cases, I say we try out some of the remedies that have been working in that area and see if we can't get similar results in this one. Shell 20:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It still misses the point, though ... the people that want to permeate the encyclopedia with homeopathy, EVP, and paranormal phenomena are not editors that we would miss. If you blocked every single one of them tonight, Misplaced Pages would be a better place for it. There actually is a clearly right side and a clearly wrong side viewed from the perspective of the information being added and deleted, even if both sides look pretty crappy from a behavioural perspective. I don't think that is true for the nationalism problems.
Kww (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What POV is the "the set of POV pushers to which SA belongs" pushing? Pro-science? Pro-reason? ScienceApologist is brave enough to enter articles like homeopathy and this, and for it, he ends up with a witch-hunting mob, trying to go after him. The fluoridation article was a clear case of WP:SYNTH being used to support a conspiracy theory. He wiped it clean and that upset the folks there. Well, sorry. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

my view on "the set of POV pushers to which SA belongs" are folks whose pov is 'mainstream'. If we were in the early part of the 20th century, they would be arguing for eugenics and racial difference theories to be included as the mainstream and the fringe/pseudoscience of gnenetics to be excluded. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV, even among fringe theories, has been described by Jimbo as something that "both sides can agree to". Much of SA's actions are unnecessary or unreasonable, and that's why become edit-wars. The recent example of Atropa Belladonna, where he edit-warred for days because it has a sentence mentioning the homeopathic remedy, despite the fact that there are 4 RS covering it, including 2 clinical trials, is a case in point. He also frequently inserts unprofessional language which can be roughly paraphrased as "anyone who believes in this is a retard". It is patently false that fluoride opposition is about a conspiracy theory; the conspiracy theory happened in the 1950s. The articles on the fluoridation used in that page are directly about fluoridation. You might try reading a few of them. Did you know that the 2000 systematic review published in the BMJ of the evidence in 2000 found no high-quality evidence of fluoridation's efficacy? However, that review got taken out. You could start with the Scientific American article from January 2008 entitled Second Thoughts About Fluoride, which is one of the first references. II | (t - c) 19:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman asked for uninvolved editors to comment. I haven't seen anyone comment yet that hasn't previously been involved in a dispute against ScienceApologist, or on his side in a dispute. I'm involved too, and have my opinions, but I'd actually like to see what uninvolved editors have to say about it. I'm curious. --Nealparr 20:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just the act of commenting on such a case tends to end up with that person somehow 'involved'. SA has a tendency to go after, often with excessive aggression, anyone who attempts to check him. At this point convincing someone who has successfully steered clear to engage in this effort may be difficult. Ronnotel (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's hard to be completely uninvolved in this dispute if you care at all about the material. Best I can say for myself is that I've been on his side in some articles, and have reported him at ANI and 3RR for misbehaviour at others.
Kww (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points are raised by Elonka and GRBerry above. I agree that an indefinite restriction on SA may make sense, until they change their ways. Perhaps a topic ban from the locus of dispute would be a reasonable first step before going to an indefinite block. SA might learn to edit better outside the "hot zone" and eventually be able to return and edit successfully. I agree with GRBerry that baiting on all sides needs to be stopped. I see two levels of problems here:

1. Unacceptable behavior, such as baiting, trolling and incivilty. This needs to be controlled no matter what the editor's editorial outlook. Those who support "good" edits are still to be restricted from using "bad" methods.
2. Unacceptable content additions or changes which violate core policies, such as WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Just because somebody is polite, does not give them a free pass to relentlessly violate content policies. Such editors need to be restricted if they fail to heed advice.

It seems like we are moving toward some common ground. Who else, not involved in the content dispute, can provide views? Jehochman 23:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong measures in this topic area are long overdue. The baiting, POV pushing, gaming, incivility, edit warring, etc and so on BY BOTH SIDES needs to stop now. Since short blocks haven't worked, we need long blocks, topic bans on the range of pertinent articles, full protection of the articles, etc. Hopefully that will work. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

LOGANA and 66.65.85.138

See also: WP:ANI#Edit war over Water fluoridation opposition. seicer | talk | contribs 17:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Rumiton

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

Topic banned for one week Chet B. Long/_ARK 05:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Rumiton (talk · contribs)
• Arbcom case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Article probation:
  • Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivility.
• WP:NPA says that: incivility... consists of personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress.

Rumiton's postings

• (Will Beback's commitment to a neutral article is lately becoming even less credible.) Revision as of 13:32, May 26, 2008
• Perhaps you (Will) are not familiar with the Wikipedic injunctions against "gaming the system"? ... Rumiton (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• I am starting to think Will stands for wilfully obtuse. Rumiton (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Accepted responsibility" is apparently the original. You changed it to "took responsibilty" to introduce the biased tone you appear to find necessary for this article. Rumiton (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• ...It is getting harder to keep patience with your stubborn mean-spiritedness. Rumiton (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• I can't help seeing it that way, Will. I believe you need to look hard at your intentions re this article. You have changed your interpretations of Misplaced Pages's rules constantly, depending on whether the suggested inclusion suits your views. This turnaround on article length is just the latest. Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• And who might these "folks" be? Well, at least Will isn't pretending to be neutral any more. Rumiton (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• I am sorry, I should have referred to Will's eagerness to adopt any source that is critical of Prem Rawat in a more neutral way. Won't happen again. Rumiton (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• ... The quotes you post do not support your contentions, but we are getting used to that. ... Rumiton (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• For goodness sake, Will, your obsession with this subject is approaching the proportions of a disorder. ...Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• I am not inclined to. I never made an "assertion" nor said "a mental disorder." What I said was ... approaching the proportions of a disorder. You have misquoted me to bolster your POV, which is what you are used to doing. I find offensive your habit (it may not be an obsession, though it looks like one) of spending hours each day trolling through the most biased and tabloidal of sources to find material critical of a living person while denigrating more balanced or positive writings. Civility applies to the living subjects of Misplaced Pages biographies as well as to the editors. You have previously claimed you didn't know what "tabloidal" means. Follow the link and read carefully the first paragraph. Rumiton (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• As I explained on my talkpage I am not inclined to remove this comment, but in the spirit of Wikipedic collegiality I am prepared to consider alternatives. I need a phrase to describe someone who is willing to spend months trolling the worst of the world's gutter press for insults to triumphantly present for inclusion in a Misplaced Pages article on a spiritual master who is well-regarded by millions. I am open to any suggestions, but "approaching a disorder" is a mild phrase that seems to cover the situation, even if inadequately. Rumiton (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I believe that Rumiton has shown a pattern of incivility and personal attacks towards me, particularly in the last several postings. He has consistently failed to assume good faith on my part. The comments above are all since the close of the ArbCom case on May 14. He has been notified of the ArbCom-imposed probation,, the probation notices appear on talk pages, and I have asked him to retract his remarks and stop making new ones. His last two comments above are his most recent responses, and they indicate his intent to continue making similar remarks. These comments, all directed at me personally, create an "atmosphere of conflict and stress" and are disruptive. I request that an uninvolved admin enforce the ArbCom's remedy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

His hostility to neutral coverage of this individual is no surprise, since by his own admission he considers Rewat a "spiritual master". - Merzbow (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has spent approaching half a year now involved in the efforts to arrive at an NPOV article on Rawat, including the arbcom case and several months now of mediation, I could not honestly say that all the recent proposals seem to have been aimed at establishing an NPOV article for this individual. I feel there has been a loss of patience on both sides, which is affecting judgment – both in terms of how to deal with other editors, and also in terms of what material to suggest for inclusion in this article. I suggest everyone take a breather. Jayen466 00:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• This isn't about whether edits are neutral or not, it's about personal attacks, incivility, and a failure to assume good faith. It's about enforcing a remedy in an ArbCom case. Does Jayen think the above remarks from Rumiton do not constitute personal attacks or incivility? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out that issues in my userspace come under my jurisdiction, therefore conduct issues are my responsibility to handle, and outside the jurisdiction of the sanctions, and a matter for me to handle. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 03:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• And will there be enforcement of Misplaced Pages policies on your user pages? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, policies apply regardless of location, and they will be enforced. I've admitted that I haven't been as attentive as I normally am as a mediator, and this has been due to some serious issues in real life, which are being dealt with. I keep my private life and on wiki live very separate, therefore matters off wiki don't extend to how I handle matters on wiki. I've always noted that regardless of how busy I am, I will always look in to the case when I can, and that I am always available by email, Skype, or IRC. It has been my intention from the start to act not only as a mediator, but a keeper of the peace, and to act on breaches on policy where appropriate. My suggestion for you Will, and for all other parties, is in future, if there is a matter that requires addressing, send me an email, and I will look into it. If i spot the issue myself, I'll act on it in the appropriate manner. Repeated breaches in policy won't be tolerated, and will be acted upon. In this situation, I'd recommend a stern final warning be issued to Rumilton, to cease and desist such conduct, and a reminder of the rules that I set down when I took on this case, specifically, no personal attacks, no incivility, and no edit warring. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 03:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Steve, a month ago Rumiton posted a personal attack and I told you then that if there were a recurrence I'd seek a sanction against the user. Today I alerted you to this latest round of incivility by email, and told you that I was intending to request sanction. Considering that we've already been through a lengthy ArbCom case, and considering this this not the first violation since then, I think the time for "stern warnings" is over. I'm patient, but if participating in "informal" mediation that Misplaced Pages policies don't apply or won't be enforced then perhaps it's time for me to withdraw from mediation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• What sort of sanction are you requesting? Civility parole, a block, or a straight out topic ban? That's probably something that would help. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 04:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Whatever stops Rumiton from posting personal attacks. I don't see how parole on top of probation would be helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'll have a chat with a sysop and see what they think is best. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 04:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• You have written several times that you will not tolerate personal attacks or incivility on your talk pages. Please don't. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• True, and on reflection, a warning likely won't work. As a non sysop, I don't have the power to implement topic bans or issue blocks. At this time, there is no real way for me to personally sanction inappropriate conduct in my userspace, the only thing I can directly do is issue warnings. I can, however, request the intervention from an administrator, and in this case, given the circumstances, I'd recommend that an admin look into this, and do what they deem is necessary. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 05:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• In other words, let this Arbitration enforcement run its course. Yes, Rumiton's incivil remarks have been less than collaborative, and he's been more than aware about the ArbCom case implications. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• I've already contacted an admin, they're looking into the situation right now. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 05:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks Steve and Chet for resolving this issue. Let's hope we don't have to come back here again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• I surely hope so as well, and I will have a think of how I can resolve such matters without it having to be brought to AE. Let's hope we don't have to come back here anytime soon. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 05:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

New Section

• Is it the normal situation that discussions like this are instigated without the editor under discussion being informed about it, or permitted to defend himself? Rumiton (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You were informed 22:52, 31 July 2008 --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

ScienceApologist abuse of SSP

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

Things you dislike or disagree with aren't necessarily egregious personal attacks. ArbCom cases don't mean that we hunt people down and ding them for every comment we don't like. Shell 23:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

this SSP report consists of nothing but diffs from months ago, , and much of the verbiage employed by ScienceApologist is clearly in violation of his ArbCom restrictions against assumptions of bad faith. For example: repeatedly calling me obsessed, (and even using this insult as a taunt). Accusing me of wiki-stalking and using the same diffs that he was previously told did not indicate wikistalking. In fact the report in its entirety looks to me to be a violation of his restrictions and an abuse of process. Look at his mischaracterizations of the diffs he provided - he even describes my response to a Request for Comments as 'wikistalking'. I do not wish to have to endure his unfounded attacks in the future. If in the judgement of the reviewing admins, this incident does not rise to a level where sanctions need be imposed, I ask at least that SA be warned against such activity in the future. Dlabtot (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There is another report about SA below. Perhaps it would be best to merge these two threads? I'll have a look at that SSP report. Jehochman 23:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)\

This is a completely different issue from the report below. Totally unrelated except for the fact that it is the same problematic editor causing the problem in both cases. So there is no reason whatsoever to merge the threads. Dlabtot (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:FT2 and User:Alison were involved in that thread and are fully aware of SA's ArbCom editing restriction. The report was closed "inconclusive", not "bogus" nor "abusive". I feel that no further action is required. The rhetorical question "Obsess much?" cited by Dlabtot is not perfectly civil, but under the circumstances of manifest disingenuity, it was not an assumption of bad faith, nor was filing the report. Folks, please stop running to WP:AE every time there is a disagreement with SA in an attempt to get SA banned. We are all working together on a collaborative project. We must help each other, not strategize on how to get opponents banned. Jehochman 23:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So SA is free to make the same unfounded attacks against me in the future? He can call me 'obsessed' all he wants and it is for some reason not considered a personal attack? Why not? Dlabtot (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Am I allowed to respond in kind? Can I make the same type of personal attacks against him that he makes against me? Dlabtot (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, I respectfully request that you allow another admin to close this report. Dlabtot (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Did I close this report? Am I not allowed to make my opinions known, or is this board restricted to only those who agree with and support you? When you bring a report here, it is best not to assume bad faith of those who are trying to help you. You're being point-y does not help this situation. From what I see, there is a longstanding disageement and one editor is using ArbCom sanctions as a club to subdue another editor. I dislike that. Jehochman 23:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:VartanM

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

seems to have calmed down, VartanM warned to tone it down, he's already on parole...Rlevse

User:VartanM resorts to incivility on Talk:Albert Asriyan. He insists on disqualifying the Azerbaijani-born violinist Albert Asriyan from Category:Azerbaijani violinists on grouds of Asriyan being an ethnic Armenian who fled Azerbaijan as a result of war between Armenia and Azerbaijan (1988—), though after having contributed to Azerbaijani music industry for decades. In his rationale for removing the category, he makes direct attacks on Azerbaijani cultural heritage by suggesting that Azerbaijan has no violinists of its own and therefore is in need of "stealing" them from other cultures. This is not the first instance of VartanM making such incivil and xenophobic comments about Azerbaijan and suggesting its cultural inferiority to Armenia. On 3 August 2007, while arguing the notability of Azerbaijani film director Huseyn Seyidzadeh, he stated that it was understandable why he could only find so few sources mentioning Seyidzadeh, as "not everyone can be Parajanov's" (sic). (Sergei Parajanov was an prominent Armenian film director of the Soviet era). I find such behaviour unacceptable, uncooperative and racist. Parishan (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

VartanM is not under sanctions so this is not the proper forum.-- Ευπάτωρ 16:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So he needs to go under sanctions as such behavior should be stopped. In his recent edits you can see anti-Azerbaijani behavior very clearly. In his another comment in the talk of Azerbaijani radio station ANS ChM he shows racist behave as well regarding a true fact that he removed. Need more facts? 16:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Side comment. He is uncivil when dealing with other users as well. Here he advice "to be nice" as a response to his opponent's completely civil request. Gülməmməd 16:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Eupator, did you forget about the amended remedies for AA2? I'm not commenting about VartanM's actions here, but if he fails to adhere to Misplaced Pages policy on AA articles, he can be placed on discretionary sanctions by an uninvolved administrator (provided that he was warned sufficiently). Gulmammad, your diffs show some rudeness, but nothing in violation of WP:CIVIL IMO. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I know. That means that an uninvolved admin can impose sanctions on anyone editing within the scope of the conflict. That has yet to be done in his case; ergo, my initial comment.-- Ευπάτωρ 17:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't normally comment here, but isn't that the point of this board? If someone is violating a remedy (i.e. the ArbCom decision), then users can come here to seek enforcement for the violation. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that this board is for reporting users who you think have violated existing arbcom sanctions against them specifically not for reporting users who you think oughta be sanctioned.-- Ευπάτωρ 18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It is also used to enforce a case decision. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion Parishan's complaint looks like a content dispute and I recommend that he uses WP:DR rather than reporting it here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to WP:DR if Parishan is interested, but then again, what guarantee do I have if he'll agree to the outcome of the DR. VartanM (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So now for what should I be sanctioned for? Parishan's conduct has been much more reprehensible than mine. Removing Armenian terms on countless articles as retaliation, adding Armenian 'antisemitism' in the main antisemetism article with a text that is longer than Poland or Germany. Adding Armenian descent for some NAZI general as retaliation and check the History of the Jews in Armenia, most of it is about antisemitism, worked again by Parishan. Heavy revert warring and refusing to adhere to the consensus wording accepted by both parties, just recently by adding the term de Jure which has been debated for over a year with a hard reached consensus for the official term. And Parishan is reporting me for what? It seems the past is back, retaliating by reporting someone for some bogus reason because your friend has been reported and sanctioned by that person. P.S I still find it amusing that the "Great Nation of Azerbaijan" has no violinist of its own and must claim Armenian ones, see the Azerbaijani violinist category to know what I mean. VartanM (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of East Europe editors need to start getting along and cease all this wikidrama. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Insult: What do you think about this insulting sentense regarding Azerbaijani nation left above by VartanM: "I still find it amusing that the "Great Nation of Azerbaijan" has no violinist of its own and must claim Armenian ones"? I see this to be pure insult adressed to a particular nation. 01:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is another comment regarding Azerbaijani radio station: :
"Removed the unsourced claim about the station being the first one on the moon".
In his comment he avoided to be bold and replied rudely to his opponent's cooperative request "please try to provide sources instead of tagging articles." Clearly this behavior shows up in his edits to articles which are related to the region and need to be sanctioned. Gülməmməd 02:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point, those kinds of comments need to cease. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, these are not just minor differences. These people, on all sides, have educated under a certain viewpoint of history. Content disputes on Misplaced Pages arise when these editors find people of other countries who dispute the entire foundation of their historical understanding. It's something you can't just forgive and forget, unfortunately. However, to avoid a ban in the future, I echo Rlevse's request to maintain civility and to not edit war on these conflict articles. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You guys don't understand the hilarity of having a Category:Azerbaijani violinists and the only entry in there is an Armenian. I'll make sure both of you get the next Azeri mass hysteria about someone stealing their culture. Hopefully one day they'll have a violinist of their own. Anyway, my sincere apology to the "Great Nation of Azerbaijan". BTW, does anyone know if they have a Article 301 of their own? I mean, I wouldn't want to be shot in the back for insulting azerbaijaness. VartanM (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

VartanM, you don't make the situation any better by keeping on making comments like this. Of course there are violinists in Azerbaijan, but there are no articles about them in nWikipedia as yet. I don't know who this person in question is, never heard of him before, but "Azerbaijani" is both ethnicity and nationality. You know this perfectly well, and yet you continue making comments offensive for other people and nations. I suggest you stop it, and remember that you are on civility parole. Grandmaster (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that VartanM is on parole, unlike parties to the fist AA case (except Eupator, who was repeatedly placed on parole). So people claiming that this user is not subject to any sanctions are wrong. Please see the list of people who are on parole: Except for the parties to the first AA case, all other people in the list are on parole. A part of VartanM's parole is civility supervision, as could be seen from a warning on his talk page. Grandmaster (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And I also find VartanM's comments to be racist and nationalistic. What's the point in making comments like that, how exactly are they helpful for building an encyclopedia? Grandmaster (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My comments are pointing at the hilarity of Azerbaijan stealing Armenian violinists. The fact alone that so many of you get so worked up about it is even more funnier. I'm surprised Parishan hasn't written 10 bio articles already. Good night to all, again my sincere apology to the "Great Nation of Azerbaijan" and its citizens. VartanM (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't need Armenian violinists, and Asriyan is not all that famous. I first heard of him at this board. Parishan added him to a category to demonstrate that this person hails from Azerbaijan, like many other people of various ethnicities do. Why so much fuss about this and why do you actually need making comments like these? Your parole requires you to be courteous, and you have prior warnings about this. If you disagree with application of this category, there are venues to discuss it and resolve the issue in a civil manner. Please follow WP:DR procedures, and stop making comments that could only lead to the escalation of the situation. Grandmaster (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And one of my first comments on the talkpage was that I have no problem with a category "Violinists from Baku" or Azerbaijan. What was Parishan's response? edit warring justified by Iranian fleeing from Iran. -???- --VartanM (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to draw attention to this edit summary of VartanM, which in my view is really no good: Grandmaster (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Lighten up, it was a joke. VartanM (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh and racist? Hold on, who is presenting everything done in Azerbaijan as the first. ANS radio for instance claimed by Gulmammad to be the first FM radio in the Caucasus. Everyone knows FM radio in the Caucasus existed long before 1994. Soviets had a different name for it and the FM spread in 1994 when private non-governmental companies opened their own TV and Radio stations. Hai FM was also founded at the same time and not after ANS, the same goes with some Georgian FM stations. Gulmammad called me a racist for questioning such bogus nationalistic claim.

And for those who don't get it, the comment on this violinist was because the man just like Gary Kasparov had to leave Azerbaijan because of threats and intimidations and ended up as a refugee. He may be considered as a violinist from Azerbaijan, but he is not an Azerbaijani violonist. Parishan created the category specifically for this man, and he knew this will create a conflict.

Perhaps no one will have any real problem if some Azerbaijani refugee of the war was called an Armenian. So those claimed racist comments were only protests retaliating to Parishan new wave of provocations. VartanM (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I created the category because I was sorting out Category:Azerbaijani musicians and placing its articles under more specific and less ambiguous sub-categories. I equally created Category:Azerbaijani folk musicians‎ on that day. Asriyan had initially been placed under Category:Azerbaijani musicians by the creator of the article; all I did was create a more appropriate sub-category to avoid geniralisation. I could never think this would cause a problem to someone to a point of resorting to xenophobic comments. Parishan (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems you still don't believe the ANS ChM radio is "the first FM radio station in the Caucasus and Central Asia regions". This hasn't been claimed by Gulmammad but by the United Nations Development Programme. You didn't want to be WP:BOLD and therefore per your rude request I provided at least one reliable, neutral source, which tells exactly what I have told. Gülməmməd 06:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear sir, un-az.org is not a neutral source. It's a website written and mainted by Azeris. And you need to pay close attention, FM radio stations existed long before 1994, they were called УКВ. But wait here is a neutral source from March 1994 that says Armenia had three(3) FM stations, thats 3 months prior to your claim. ....Weired..... --VartanM (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

First, .com is not reliable source. Second, the site that you see URL contains az is subsite of the UNDP which is for Azerbaijan. Similar one is for Armenia and it contains .am. I see no tragedy here and they are expected to be neutral. Note that the source talks about private, independent FM radio (Frequency Modulation radio). УКВ (Ултра коротких волнах-Ultra Short Waves) were range of broadcasting frequencies not radio station. Gülməmməd 06:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Will reply at the talkpage, of said article. VartanM (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

VartanM, it would be a shame if an administrator blocked you for your conduct in this AE report, so knock it off. As for Albert Asriyan, I believe both the Azerbaijani and Armenian violinist categories should belong. From my experiences, if a person spent a considerable portion of their life in two different countries, then they belong in categories for both nations. That's how I've tagged stubs for musicians and that's how I've seen others do it. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The guy above just claimed that .com's are not reliable sources and I'm the one getting warned? Anyway, I'll sort the FM thing in the talkpage of the article. VartanM (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to bring it to the administrators' attention that VartanM is deliberately restating his original offensive comments about Azerbaijani culture even here. In this very discussion he has done it twice. One could easily come up with gazillions of potential sub-categories that Category:Armenian culture is lacking and likewise make childish impudent conclusions about Armenian culture's inferior, deficient, primitive, meagre little nature. However I have a feeling that users like VartanM would be among the first ones to report someone who would make such statement. Parishan (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Levine2112 request

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

withdrawn by ScienceApologist

I hereby request a topic ban for Levine2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from all pseudoscience/alt med. related articles per Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions. We have had multiple users say he is disruptive. Recently, he has made false claims of consensus at Talk:Atropa belladonna, mischaracterized discussions, and generally has all the features of a civil POV-pusher who is tendentious and disruptive to the project. We have an entire library of how awful he is available here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Levine2112. NO administrator has taken it upon themselves to fix this problems with this user. Please help. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh, this was on ANI a few weeks ago, and I thought you had realized that your conduct of July 5th you actively encouraged him to make the edits that you then used as an excuse to remove all mention of alternative medicine from the article. And you were banned from the article for a week back then. I see that both you and he have made 3 reverts to the article today. Looking at the article history, there was no revert warring going on until you returned to the article yesterday. To the extent that a consensus on the talk page is visible, he is correct; you appear to be the only editor on the talk page who disagrees with the mention of homeopathy in the article, although the edit war history shows you do have one supporter. Right now, my inclination is to renew your article topic ban and possibly make it permanent. To my eyes, the disruptive editor here is ScienceApologist. Does any uninvolved admin disagree? Or, on further thought, would putting SA on a revert limit be more useful than a topic ban? GRBerry 01:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Sigh, I've come to expect at this point that you would make false accusations against me due to your carefully honed and incubated vendetta against me. I can imagine that part of your advocacy is depedent on you willfully refusing to research matters carefully as you've clearly done here. What it seems to me like you are doing is relying on your preconceived notions to guide your construction of misleading, insulting, and ignorant comments. One ray of hope is that at least you are now admitting you are an involved administrator. I'm glad I don't have to worry about receiving punative blocks from you anymore. The hope is that other naive mop-and-bucket-carriers don't get taken in by the falsehoods and gross misrepresentations of your ideologically-bound advocacy.
  • There are so many sins you need to repent of here and so little examination of that beam coming out of your eye. You ironically accuse me of misrepresentation when you have in your short little diatribe written at least two things that are prima facie false, and one insulting insinuation that I should serve as the ceremonial whipping boy for an edit war involving multiple parties. Your cursory glance at the situation only seems to indicate to you one thing: ScienceApologist?!?!?! He's got to be the one deserving punishment!. Rather than wasting time segregating your mischaracterizations, or pointing out the places where you bore false witness against me, let's stick to the real issue of this request. Levine2112 has been acknowledged by a broad swathe of the community as a disruptive editor. People have noticed this behavior at a variety of places including his activity at chiropractic, alternative medicine, and other places where he has not only been most unhelpful, he hasn't ever added any meaningful content or done anything more than engage in outright obstructionism.
  • ScienceApologist (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

    You appear to be misinterpreting the sentence "Does any uninvolved admin disagree?". It is properly clarified as "Does any other uninvolved admin disagree?" (I obviously don't disagree with myself.) If you come to an arbitration enforcement page, expect arbitration enforcement regulars such as myself to be here.

    I see one factual inaccuracy above that Akhilleus didn't comment on - Levine2112 only reverted two times while ScienceApologist reverted three times. That there was no edit war until you returned to the page is transparently obvious to anyone that looks at the page history; there was a vandalism/test-edit and revert on the 16th of July but otherwise the article was not being edited in the two weeks prior to your return.

    Frankly, I find your description of Levine2112 to be more accurate as a description of ScienceApologist than of Levine2112. Accordingly, as an uninvolved administrator, I am intending to impose appropriate sanctions on you, unless someone else that is uninvolved comes up with a better solution. GRBerry 16:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's at least two editors on the talk page who agree w/SA, and I find SA's arguments convincing myself. I've participated in the discussion before, and found Levine2112 uncooperative. At times I suspected he was willfully misunderstanding other people's arguments, instead of engaging with them and explaining why he disagreed. Partially because of Levine2112, I found discussion at Talk:Atropa belladonna to be a waste of time, and stopped watching the page. I also think Levine2112 has misrepresented discussions as resulting in consensus when they were in fact inconclusive (e.g., this thread at WP:NPOVN, which Levine2112 has used as justification for some of his edits). However, behavior on one article doesn't justify a sweeping topic ban such as the one SA is suggesting. Furthermore, both Levine and SA have engaged in problematic edit-warring on this article, and the best way of dealing with this might be a revert limit for both editors. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if Akhilleus is including me in this count, since I have little desire to repeat myself endlessly on talk pages. It should be considered that the reason for aforementioned lull may have less to do with ratiocination of the force of the arguments than boredom with the force with which they are defended. Based on several due credulity disputes with this user, I consider User:Levine2112's editorial insight imprudent in these areas. The fact of aforementioned disputes should be considered when judging the weight of my opinion. In other areas of the project, for instance here, I consider their judgment sound. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GRBerry here. There are legit concerns on both sides. If we topic ban one, we should topic ban both users. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's unsurprising that you are on GRBerry's side here, but I should also remind people that our little dust-up in January hardly makes you an uninvolved administrator. It would be nice if you stayed out of conversations that did not directly involve you and did involve me. It would be nice if GRBerry did that too, but I've grown used to both of your harassing wikistalking at enforcement pages. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I patrol AE regularly, almost everyday-I a not stalking anyone. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I do believe that a restriction on reverting and undoing would be more useful than a total topic ban or even a topic ban allowing use of the talk pages. Revert restrictions might work to end the edit wars while still letting the users seek compromises if they wish to do so. And it is a solution that seems to be working well in the nationalist POV wars. I see no reason it wouldn't work as well in the pro/anti alternative medicine POV wars and managing the POV warriors such as SA or Dana Ullman (were he still around). And I'm far more concerned by sterile revert warring than by disagreements about how much weight to put on various issues in an article - the first is always a problem, the second is part of the normal editorial process when different editors have different points of view. I do want to start by imposing the sanctions under Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy's discretionary sanctions first. Let's start smaller than all pseudoscience related articles. If it works there then we could consider expanding as needed under the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience (one arbitration motion for both cases) discretionary sanctions. If it doesn't work there, we can the expand to complete topic bans. Sorting it out, my proposal is (from worst problem to smallest):

1. ScienceApologist, who reverted three times in this edit war, has multiple prior blocks for edit warring, has been formally notified of the existence of discretionary sanctions under both the Homeopathy and ScienceApologist/Pseudoscience cases, and has already been sanctioned for this article once under the Homeopathy case, be put on revert restrictions immediately.
2. Ludwigs2, who reverted three times in this edit war, has a prior block for edit warring, and who from Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 14#Discussion and related activity definitely knows of the discretionary sanctions for the Homeopathy case be put on revert restrictions immediately
3. Levine2112, who reverted two times in this edit war, has prior blocks for edit warring, and who from Talk:Quackwatch where he has been active may or may not know of the the discretionary sanctions for the Homeopathy case be formally notified and warned about revert warring.
4. QuackGuru, who reverted one time in this edit war, has multiple prior blocks for edit warring, and who from Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 14#Discussion and related activity definitely knows of the discretionary sanctions for the Homeopathy case be informally cautioned.
5. Kwamikagami, who reverted two times in this edit war, has a clean block log, and probably doesn't know of the discretionary sanctions (though may have seen them at Talk:Quackwatch where he has been active) be informally cautioned.
6. Dlabtot, who reverted one time in this edit war, has one prior block for edit warring, and probably doesn't know of the discretionary sanctions be ignored.
7. ImperfectlyInformed, who reverted one time in this edit war, has a clean block log, and probably doesn't know of the discretionary sanctions (though may have seen them at Talk:Quackwatch where he has been active) be ignored.

For all immediately restricted, the revert restrictions would be for homeopathy (broadly construed) articles and homeopathy (broadly construed) related material in other articles, be a 1 revert per page per week restriction, and except only vandalism (for which purpose vandalism explicitly does not include point of view editing, an provision that shouldn't need to be made explicit, but...). For each restricted editor, the restriction will lapse 6 months after the last violation by that editor for which a block or caution is issued and logged. Violations to result in blocks or cautions at the discretion of the reviewing admins here at WP:AE. GRBerry 16:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just a note: ScienceApologist called me a wackjob conspirancy theorist and lunatic, which I believe calls for some sort of Arb enforcement -- although I might be wrong. I don't think a short block will do much good, and I'm not exactly hurt, but someone else might have been hurt by those words. Perhaps it is skirts civility to say it, but I've said before that ScienceApologist seems to pursue edit-warring. I suggested on the atropa belladonna page that he try a different approach: open up a RfC to gauge consensus; if he can get a reasonable consensus to remove the single sentence mentioning homeopathy, then nobody will object to taking it out. If he can't, then he should leave it be. I started a section for that question, but no one has responded yet. (My take is that if 2 clinical trials in mainstream journals have been done, it seems reasonable to give it a sentence.) II | (t - c) 20:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Xasha

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

Olahus and Xasha banned from "all edits touching on the historical and ethnic relation between Moldova and Romania, expires in 6 months"

I'm filing this report myself regarding statements made by User:Xasha against User:Olahus because the latter is now blocked for revert-warring and wiki-stalking, and because the statements made by Xasha merit the enforcers' attention.

The two statements in question are here ("I'll revert any edit that calls a Nazi invasion 'liberation'") and here ("Wtf man, every edit made by me is blindly reverted by Olahus (he doesn't even care that he introduces Nazi apologia in the process).") (Note too the incivility there.)

For those who may not be aware, what we are discussing is the Romanian advance into Bessarabia (roughly equivalent to today's Moldova) in summer 1941. The province had joined Romania in 1918 before the Soviet Union forced its cession in June 1940. A year of Stalinist terror followed, and Romanians there naturally greeted the return of their army with relief and a sense of being liberated.

Without passing judgment on the liberation/occupation issue, and without seeking to trivialize the crimes committed by the Romanian Army in the period following June 1941, permit me to state that this is an egregious accusation by Xasha, who has a history of comparing opinions he dislikes to "Nazism". First, it was not a "Nazi invasion" but a Romanian operation, something Xasha likely knows well. Second, and even more damning, Xasha accuses Olahus of "Nazi apologia". Unfortunately for Xasha, the Romanian press (and I mean serious, mainstream organs) routinely refers to this event as a liberation, and no one accuses it of Nazi apologia (remember, it was the Romanian Army that went in, not the German). Examples: from Ziua last month - "Voronin's Communists Lament Bessarabia's Temporary Liberation from beneath the Bolshevik Yoke." From Memoria - "the liberation of Bessarabia by the Romanian Army...they were able to return to Chişinău after its liberation." From Jurnalul Naţional - "...a military administration in the provinces liberated in summer 1941." From Gardianul - "On 22 June 1941 the Romanian Army crossed the Prut to liberate Bessarabia." And, from the Romanian Army's own newspaper - "...the anti-Soviet war for the liberation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina..."

Now, why does all this matter? Well, first, Olahus was clearly not describing a "Nazi invasion" as a "liberation". And second, he was not expressing "Nazi apologia" but a mainstream viewpoint. Xasha is attempting to discredit him, to silence him by raising the spectre of Nazi sympathies. Unfortunately for him, the Digwuren case is very clear: "All editors are warned that future attempts to use Misplaced Pages as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee." Given Xasha's expanding block log, including two blocks under the Digwuren case, I trust the Committee will take appropriate action. Biruitorul 23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The town was captured during an Axis offensive (Operation Barbarossa), by combined Nazi German and Antonescu's Romanian troops (with Germans having the main role, according to this Romanian site describing the offensive). What followed was a massacre of the Jewish majority in the city and the whole region(about 150,000 were deported to Transnistria were most of them perished; that's what the Romanian gvt said at least). How low can somebody go to call this a "liberation"? Xasha (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

1. It was an overwhelmingly (but of course not exclusively) Romanian operation; the Germans were busy in Russia. 2. No one here is contesting that Jews in the area were deported and massacred, or condoning the action. However, from 1940-41, Romanians were themselves deported and killed, and Romanians in June 1941, having suffered a year of Stalinist terror, did greet the Romanian Army as liberators (note women throwing flowers before Antonescu), something that is still reflected in the mainstream Romanian press today. 3. Regardless of the precise nature of what happened in 1941, your charges that Olahus was defending a "Nazi invasion" and introducing "Nazi apologia" remain unacceptable, per the Digwuren case - both its special provision regarding Nazi accusations, and more general restrictions based on WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Biruitorul 00:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Romanians who studied it say otherwise. See linked site 2. Do you want to battle in propaganda movies and photos? I could bring tons of em showing Soviet greeted with flowers, both in 1940 and 1944. The traditional kiss is even more suggestive. Also, please stop this nationalist rant... the Soviets where not after Romanians, but anybody whom they considered an exploiter, kulak or counterrevolutionary, be it Romanian, Moldovan, Russian or Gagauz (the most famous of the deportees being a Russian ethnic, Eufrosinia Kersnovskaya). The Jews, on the other hand, were killed because of their ethnoreligious association. 3. They were very factual accusation, and that Digwuren provision has nothing to do with it. That provision says clearly: accusations that "a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies", but I didn't accuse his national or ethnic group, I accused only himself for a very specific matter: the presentation of an abominable Nazi invasion as a "liberation". Per AGF "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice". Being harassed by him quite entitles me to stop assuming good faith. Xasha (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Sure there was German participation, but dismissing it as an "abominable Nazi invasion" is a distortion of the facts that serves to discredit Olahus' views as unacceptably tainted by Nazi sympathies - which is clearly not the case (see the Romanian press quotes). 2. That some greeted the Soviets in 1940/44 is immaterial to the discussion - the fact remains that Romanians, who had just been through a year of Stalinist terror (and calling my description of it as such a "nationalist rant" will not diminish its horror by one iota), were heavily targeted, if not explicitly because of their ethnicity, then because they were the dominant ethnic group, and dominant among the classes the Soviets were targeting. And that they did in fact greet the returning Romanians as liberators, which many Romanians still consider them to have been. 3. You need not assume good faith on every aspect of Olahus' conduct, but you don't go around accusing him of defending a "Nazi invasion" and introducing "Nazi apologia", unless he places a swastika on his user page. You don't link people to Nazism, whatever you may privately think their motivations are. You, however, have chosen to do that, and Digwuren is clear on the consequences. But even if that is not the case, one only has to look at its very next section: "should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." Linking someone to Nazi sympathies in the absence of explicit declarations he is one is uncivil, a personal attack, an assumption of bad faith. Either way, you have violated the restriction and I trust the enforcers will act accordingly. Biruitorul 02:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

While it is certainly true that all sides should tone the debate down a bit, Biruitorul, I think you are overlooking one particular thing in the present instance: Xasha was edit-warring in favour of a term that is objectively neutral ("capture"). Olahus was edit-warring in favour of a term that very very obviously is not neutral ("liberate"). It doesn't matter in the slightest if you or "many Romanians" may have reasons to think it was the latter; everybody with a modicum of intelligence and experience with Misplaced Pages policies must understand the term is unacceptable here. And for Xasha to point out that the unacceptability of the term is due exactly to the (very obvious) fact that it can be understood as Nazi apologia is a reasonable thing to do, even if under more relaxed circumstances I'd expect him to with less of an element of personal insinuation. Given the prior history between the two, I don't see much use in looking at it too much from this civility angle; with this amount of multilateral stalking, harassment and revert-warring, people obviously get hot under the collar. Let's deal with the tendentious editing, which is the root cause of the problems here; the civility issues are secondary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree "liberated" was a poor word choice, and that Olahus' conduct was provocative. Nevertheless, what I see as the crucial point is that Xasha has a history of these Nazi insinuations, and it should somehow be impressed upon him that these are unacceptable. Not only here, but here, here, here and here one sees the same sort of thing. Or here, he described a perfectly good-faith edit of mine as "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa" instead of calmly asking me to modify it or doing so himself. It's difficult to edit productively with another party when he's constantly accusing you of harboring Nazi sympathies. Biruitorul 14:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. You want be banned with all costs. I'm an evil Stalinist paid by the communists. Something new? Should I call operation Barbarossa a "marbelous enterprise of our great Fuhrer, one who is on par with the gods, to free our superior white race from those mischievous, good-for-nothing slavs and their Jewish rulers" just to prevent any accusation of Nazi-bashing?Xasha (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. And here I was defending him and thinking it might be a good idea giving him a chance to edit without his opponent for while. But this posting has earned him his next block too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The particular little revert war over Balti may have been sparked by my own sloppiness: The original edit was made by an anon user from a Romanian IP ( probably Bonaparte having fun). As I'm watching that article, it popped up in my watchlist and I promptly reverted it upon seeing the "Soviet occupiers, the genocidal policy", dismissing it as the usual by Bonny. Unfortunately, I failed to notice that popups reverts only one edit, leaving most of the anon's edits intact. Xasha noticed this on the following day and reverted deeper, correcting my mistake. --Illythr (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Olahus has made a statement on his talk page. Instead of copying the rather sizeable piece here, as he asks, I'm linking to it instead. --Illythr (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FutPerf except I want to clarify we can't ignore the incivility. Plus this is getting really old. Maybe topic bans are in order all around? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess topic ban for both plus strict civility parole would be a good thing. Two people permanently at each other's throats can simply not be tolerated. (Reminds me of that situation last year with User:Tajik and User:E104421) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify - would that be Olahus and Xasha or me and Xasha? Because I haven't even edited on Moldova-related matters for a while. Biruitorul 15:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Olahus of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Any opposition to topic bans for Olahus and Xasha, banning them from Romanian-related articles, broadly interpreted? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• No, seems like a good idea.  Sandstein  07:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Support such topic ban, but it needs a time expiration, six months will do nicely as a start. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is still happening? Oh, yes, please. -- tariqabjotu 22:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's go for it. The topic should be "all edits touching on the historical and ethnic relation between Moldova and Romania", I'd say. No problem if they want to write articles on, say, Romanian or Moldovan towns, villages or rivers. But they'd better not then get into a naming dispute where Romanian or Moldovan preferences are at stake. – Also, should the ban cover talk page discussions? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with FP's proposal, 6 months, renewable if their behavior doesn't improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ban applied. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)