- The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
-
Is That All There Is?
Thatcher 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Subject to
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Martinphi restricted
Martinphi (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, they may be banned from any affected page or set of pages.
I would like to call the attention of uninvolved administrators to this particularly provocative comment:
[21] where he lectures another Wikipedian who has been around for a long time with some pretty harsh language:
"This is not valid for Wikipedia. Your arguments are completely your POV, and have nothing to do with WP policy. Thus, they are not valid here."
I think this is disruptive. Does anyone else? I'll also point out that this particular page is subject to a
probation, and so that he would engage in this behavior is especially disturbing.
Please also note that
I'm not the only one who has noticed Martin's disruptive tendencies at homeopathy.
ScienceApologist (
talk) 02:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Editors were rejecting the National Institutes of Health the American Medical Association and the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education as being POV sources for Homeopathy. They were doing this because "A government agency is a political creature." and because "Generalisations are generally bogus" and "Organizations that use the scientific method to evaluate claims all reject homeopathy," the last as if the NIH, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, and AMA don't use the scientific method. Looks like just their POV to me, and under such circumstances not a harsh criticism. I have recieved no complaints from said editors, but certainly intended no personal offense. ——
Martinphi
☎ Ψ
Φ—— 02:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Is that all?
Thatcher 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Tu quoque
- Please consider that just minutes earlier, ScienceApologist - who is under similar restrictions as MartinPhi - called another editor a
"POV Pusher". Thus, he's probably not the best person to be reporting anyone for behavioral issues, especially MartinPhi. --
Levine2112
discuss 02:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Respectfully, I am under civility restrictions, not disruptive editing restrictions. Secondly, I was reverting creationist POV-pushing. I have no reason to believe that the editor in question is a POV-pusher. Regardless, I cannot refactor edit summaries and so apologize.
ScienceApologist (
talk) 02:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- And
when you accused me of POV-pushing what, exactly, was the point of view that you believed me to be pushing with
this edit?
Dlabtot (
talk) 03:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Note: Edit warring on the enforcement page is a really really bad idea. I will look at this report tonight at home.
Thatcher 20:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
I have reported
User:Dlabtot here:
WP:ANI#Continued harassment;
User:Levine2112 is also wearing down my patience, but one thing at a time.
ScienceApologist (
talk) 21:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Is that all? I find myself unmoved to take action on either complaint. More hangnails. On the content question which prompted Martin's outburst, both he and the other editors are partly right. The AMA and NIH do say some nice-ish things about homeopathy, and web sites written for consumer use are rarely scientifically rigorous. There is nothing particularly disruptive about the quoted comment. And ScienceApologist did not say "POV pusher" as quoted above, he said "rv creationist POV pushing" which is a slight but subtle difference (although avoidance of the word "pushing" would have helped. Dlabtot and Levine2112 parachuting into the middle of this was thoroughly unhelpful, as was Dlabtot and ScienceApologist edit warring on this page. The admins who cover this page are not potted plants and do a pretty good job of separating the wheat from the chaff. The block of Dlabtot and ScienceApologist seems well-deserved, no action on these hangnails.
Thatcher 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The discussion above 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.
- The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
- An arbitrator has clarified that this is only limited to episode-related articles, and shouldn't be taken to implicitly apply to other areas.
[22]
Dmcdevit·
t 19:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
On 02:18, 3 February 2008,
TTN (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) was
informed of the Arbitration Committee's
injunction in
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, which expressly provides that
For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.
In blatant violation of the purpose and intent of this injunction,
TTN
removed most of the content from
List of Wario characters (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) on 03:07, 3 February 2008, thereby reducing the article from 49,527 bytes to a mere 14,407 bytes, as shown in the
page history. I request that, pursuant to the injunction, the content removed by
TTN be restored, and that, having previously been
warned of the injunction,
TTN's account be blocked for an adequate period of time.
John254 03:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
TTN (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) has begun to unilaterally blank entire sections and paragraphs of other articles in an apparent attempt to thwart the purpose of the injunction -- see
[23] and
[24], for example.
John254 04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- He did not violate the injunction, as the injunction only prohibits (un)redirection/(un)deletion. The various loopholes and problems with the injunction were brought up in the talk page, but as it was never amended, apparently the arbitrators were happy with the specific wording, which TTN did not violate.
seresin |
wasn't he just...? 05:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- An injunction which forbids any editor to "redirect or delete any currently existing article" necessary includes a prohibition on attempting to achieve the same effect by unilateral blanking of large portions of article content -- otherwise,
TTN could simply stub all episode and character articles. Pursuant to the policy that
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, the injunction should be enforced for its intended purpose of preventing edit warring over the inclusion of episode and character content --
TTN should hardly be rewarded for inventing a method to (possibly) adhere to the letter of the injunction while circumventing it.
John254 05:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I love the good faith going on here. It's called cleanup. Removing cruft from game related articles is something that is done all of the time, and I'm sure if you ask
WP:CVG, not one person there would disagree with the removal of the information on that list. If you look at the edit history, you can see that I was already in the middle of it anyways. The other two are also basic cleanup/information rearrangement. That has nothing to do with trying to bypass the injunction.
TTN (
talk) 05:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Calling material "cruft" is not assuming good faith about the editors who added the material. If the article really needs to be cleaned up, someone who is not an involved party in an ongoing arbitration case can do it. --
Pixelface (
talk) 07:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Actually, the removals of content are contentious -- the
blanking of most of the content from
List of Wario characters (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) was
partially reversed, for example. Now, I imagine that if there's a serious dispute as to whether individual characters deserve their own articles, many editors are going to be rather displeased with the unilateral
removal of a large number of entries from
List of Wario characters.
John254 05:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Would you explain how any of this involves a episode of a television show or a character from a television show? That's all the injunction pertains to. Different kinds of behaviour with respect to a different class of article.
Kww (
talk) 05:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- That's a rather hairsplitting distinction, since
TTN has recently been edit warring over the redirection of articles related to video games -- see
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]. The purpose of the injunction is presumably to actually stop the edit warring, not to move it to a slightly different set of closely related articles.
John254 06:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Discus.—
Ryūlóng (
竜龍) 05:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Maybe we should protect some of these articles based on basic wiki edit warring rules. —
Rlevse •
Talk • 11:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- That will be protecting every article on fiction. --
Cat
chi? 14:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Page protection is designed as a temporary measure to prevent edit warring on a single article. In cases of persistent edit warring over a large number of articles, page protection is not a viable remedy, since applying full protection to thousands of articles for an extended period of time would be extremely disruptive. If
TTN (
talk ·
contribs)'s response to an injunction forbidding him to edit war over the inclusion of television episode characters by means of redirection is to start edit warring over the inclusion of video game characters by blanking large portions of articles -- see
[30] and
[31] as additional examples of unilateral blankings of content -- believing his activities to be sufficiently removed from the letter of the injunction that he can circumvent its purpose, then the only remedy available to prevent
TTN from engaging in further edit warring over a large number of articles is to block
TTN's account.
John254 15:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Possibly the solution is to interpret the episode redirection injunction as general, and to interpret it broadly for those who aren't parties to the case, but to interpret it strictly for those who are parties to the case. ie. To have TTN and other parties to the case to be asked to stop redirecting/unredirecting on any articles. There is plenty of other work that can be done while they wait for the case to finish.
Carcharoth (
talk) 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Which again brings up my point - even in the face of an arbcom injunction, he continues to behave as usual. Hence my concern about being a
single-purpose account with no interest apart from removing content. QED cheers,
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs) 20:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
John254, will you stop at nothing to try to get a good and valued contributor blocked? He clearly hasn't violated any arbcom injunction. --
Ned Scott 07:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The discussion above 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.
- The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
- No action taken here. Complaint archived without response at WP:AN/I. I will make a comment to both users, but not as action here.
GRBerry
-
Warning given to
JustaHulk (
talk ·
contribs) on
WP:ANI by
Jehochman (
talk ·
contribs).
-
Harassment on Wikinews
-
AFTER the warning notice by Jehochman, JustaHulk posts again - to talk page of
Jimbo Wales (
talk ·
contribs). JustaHulk calls the subject heading: "Wikinews is a crack whore".
-
Twice calls me a "propagandist"
-
JustaHulk claims to Jehochman that he is done with his inflammatory actions, admits he reneged on Jehochman's warning
-
Justanother notes that his own comment to Thatcher was trolling
-
That then gets reverted by Thatcher
-
JustaHulk creates an attack page (That page was deleted by
Jehochman (
talk ·
contribs) with the comment: "Appears to be an attack page with no encyclopedic purpose." )
-
Again making disruptive comments at talk page of Jimbo Wales
Durova (
talk ·
contribs)
comments at talk page of Jimbo Wales: JustaHulk, twice now you've proposed that Cirt is a "paid propagandist". Do you have anything more than an edit count to support that very serious accusation?
More recently,
JustaHulk (
talk ·
contribs) has posted an "announcement" at both the userpage for
User:JustaHulk, and the userpage for
User:Justanother, where he says: I found myself objecting strongly to a prolific propagandist successfully embedding him/herself in this project and at WikiNews where s/he found some willing cohorts and little moderating influence. -- Again, though not directly mentioning a particular user, this use of this language "prolific propagandist", again, is a blatant violation of
WP:NPA.
-
"prolifict propagandist" inflammatory wording at userpage for Justanother
-
"prolifict propagandist" inflammatory wording at userpage for JustaHulk
-
He calls attention to his "announcement" at the talk page for Jimbo Wales
This user does not seem to be able to stop, even after comments from Administrators of both Wikipedia and Wikinews, and a recent warning from
Jehochman (
talk ·
contribs).
Cirt (
talk) 20:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I note the following:
- Behavior at Wikinews is outside the scope of Wikipedia enforcement. Some users who are successful elsewhere have become unwelcome here, and some users unwelcome elsewhere are successful here.
- None of the diffs are to articles, or even to article talk pages.
- Justahulk/Justanother is urged to avoid Shutterbug/COFS in the arbitration and warning.
- So far as I can tell, Cirt does not discluse that he is the same editor as COFS/Shutterbug. Nor does he disclose that he is Makoshack and Misou, who are to be treated as if they were COFS.
- Based on this, I think there is no case for arbitration enforcement alleged here, and no arbitration enforcement should occur. Both editors should probably be advised to behave civilly toward one another, but not as arbitration enforcement.
GRBerry 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Response
I noted the following here, because the actions of
JustaHulk (
talk ·
contribs), as
Justanother (
talk ·
contribs), have been heavily discussed in the above arbitration case. If this is not the proper location, I will repose this to
WP:ANI.
Cirt (
talk) 21:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- With regard to the comment by
GRBerry (
talk ·
contribs) re: behavior at Wikinews - yes, I agree that behavior on a different sister project may not be part of the scope of Wikipedia enforcement. But disruption by
JustaHulk (
talk ·
contribs), constantly posting inflammatory disruptive remarks about behavior on a different project - is within the scope of Wikipedia enforcement. For example,
this, and more recently,
this.
Cirt (
talk) 21:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
I note that although the arbitration remedy doesn't specifically restrict Justanother/Justahulk, it does have a provision concerning "Harassment of User:Justanother by User:Anynobody" which states: "Anynobody has since at least March 2007 complained to and of Justanother with great frequency and persistence, and sometimes without relevance to mainspace editing, on WP:ANI, a variety of user talkpages, WP:RFA, and other fora, some of them clearly not intended for such use." This strikes me as quite relevant to the situation that Cirt describes. I would suggest that this remedy be widened to prohibit the harassment of any editor involved in this subject area by any other editor involved in the same subject area. --
ChrisO (
talk) 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Note: Due to the comment by
GRBerry (
talk ·
contribs), above, I have posted this notice to
WP:ANI.
Cirt (
talk) 21:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- JustaHulk appears to have given up editing on Wikinews after it became painfully apparent he has a conflict of interest on Scientology. He has not shown sufficient maturity to be asked to give a pro-Scientology point of view and avoid whitewashing articles or interviews where he could otherwise inject a degree of balance. Instead he resorts to denigrating the project here on Wikipedia by trolling Jimmy Wales' talk page and generally "being a dick". I would welcome some pro-scientology questions for our upcoming interviews with CoS critics, but if they're all as crazy as JustaHulk it is a waste of time. I'm better off trying to formulate pro-CoS questions myself, and I don't think highly of the organisation. He tried to tell us that we were producing inappropriate coverage of the takedown of the CoS website, but as it turns out we were first to cover something that turned into real-world protests with 8-10K people globally protesting the church on
Lisa McPherson's birthday. Wikinews doesn't have any enemies (apart from WoW) but if we maintained a shit list JustaHulk would be on it for attacking contributors and questioning their integrity. --
Brian McNeil /
talk 23:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The discussion above 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.
Related case:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.
Between January 29 and February 11 (two weeks)
Nickhh (
talk ·
contribs) has made edits to a total of 7 different articles, on 5 of them he made reverts on my work, and 4 of those 5 were articles the editor has never touched before.
- 16:39, 11 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Tomorrow's Pioneers (Presumably much of the Palestinian public was already aware of the programme? Interesting phrasing ....) (top)
- 17:49, 7 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Saeb Erekat (Undid revision 189767895 by Nickhh (talk) Self rv. But it was a fair point)
- 17:48, 7 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Saeb Erekat (→Battle of Jenin controversy: Editing Jaakobou style, cherry picking sources for the line that best suits a particular POV. And do we really need MORE footnotes??!)
- 21:44, 6 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Israeli-Palestinian conflict (That's not the only reason ever given by every Israeli)
- 21:22, 6 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Unneeded and WP:OR assertion, which takes as fact Israeli interpretation of events)
- 21:20, 6 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Some, not all. And are Palesintians really "refusing", while Israel is merely "reluctant"?)
- 21:07, 6 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Undid revision 189334463 by Jaakobou (talk) Intro too long as it is, stop stuffing it with Israeli POV)
- 20:22, 6 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Tomb of Samuel (Undid revision 189557807 by Gilabrand Please explain why you are reverting inaccuracies into article. People have explained why they've taken them out)
- 18:56, 6 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Tomb of Samuel (Not in Israel)
- 18:05, 1 February 2008 (hist) (diff) m Château Pétrus (Undid revision 188314552 by 67.184.167.158 (talk) Yawn) (top)
- 08:49, 1 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Mar Saba (Nope. Can people stop doing this?)
- 08:55, 29 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Undid revision 187657751 by Jaakobou (talk). Now all the clarity is lost, as to which settlements. And you ignored talk debate)
- 08:50, 29 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Haim Farhi (→Historical background: rv3)
- 08:48, 29 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Haim Farhi (→The vendetta: rv 2)
- 08:47, 29 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Haim Farhi (→Al-Jazar's advisor: rv to standard wording for area at time. Ref to "Israel" anachronistic at best, POV at worst)
|
Following established editors to articles you've never worked on and reverting them is a violation of the
Decorum principals, specifically,
WP:STALK and
WP:POINT (Saeb Erekat).
With respect,
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 08:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Is this a test to see if I "stalk" you here too? Anyway I suppose I have, by your terminology. You seem to be missing a few crucial points though -
- 1) I was never a party in the arbitration, nor was I even notified it was taking place. Arguably I should have been, but that's a different point. The fact that you mentioned my name in one of your posts during the arbitration means nothing;
- 2) On top of that, you have failed to notify me that you have posted this complaint about me, which seems a bit underhand;
- 3) Only one of the above diffs is a complete revert of a recent edit of yours [oops, sorry, two of them in fact]. You had made that edit unilaterally, without discussing it, when there was a major talk page debate underway about the paragraph in question.
- 4) The other changes were of information that was manifestly incorrect, eg that Napoleon invaded "Israel", or that Mar Saba was "in Israel". You have since acknowledged those errors, so it seems a little rich to now Wikilawyer against me as if I'm the one who did something wrong here.
- 5) Per the above, considering that you seemed to be ranging around various articles trying to change standard terminology relating to Israel & Palestine, I was perfectly entitled to have a look at what articles you were trying to do that in. And then remove any related errors when I found them. As it happens, I had in fact edited on or at least been aware of most of the articles already.
- You've provided no evidence a) that I have deliberately stalked you or followed you to a large number of articles, b) that I have reverted any of your edits for the sake of it or c) that any of the edits I have made were incorrect. So what is the point here? The fact that you've posted this complaint says way more about you than it does about me. --
Nickhh (
talk) 14:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Interestingly, I've also just noticed that you've posted an edited version of my contributions history here, removing every entry showing I discussed several of the issues on talk pages, and actually refrained from making some edits. You have not made clear that this is what you have done. --
Nickhh (
talk) 14:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- His edits look fine to me. He is only correcting POV edits (i.e. those claiming that East Jerusalem is in Israel
[34] or that the West Bank is part of Israel
[35]), being more factually corrent (e.g. that the area was referred to as Palestine at the time
[36]) and removing OR commentary
[37]. What is more worrying is how the facts that he has corrected got in in the first place.
пﮟოьεԻ
5
7 15:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Number 57's comment might be misleading as he makes an incorrect content based assesment and inserts a link to Tomb of Samuel, which is not one of the 4-5 mentioned articles.
- The reason I posted, is that Nickhh, an editor connected with the Arbcom, was following me to 4 new articles and making points on Saeb Erekat.
diff
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC) added wikilink 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I have already replied to this comment once, but it was moved by Jaakobou. Anyway, I did not insert a link to the Tomb of Samuel - Jaakobou includes it in his "evidence" above.
пﮟოьεԻ
5
7 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
I would go into more detail explaining each edit you've raised one by one, but a) I don't see why I should have to since they are all fairly obviously legitimate edits, and b) in any event you're undermining your own case every time you open your mouth here to slag me or other editors off. So I'll just leave you to get on with that. Enjoy --
Nickhh (
talk) 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I believe this comment to be in violation of the
Decorum principals, specifically it is a user directed personal attack. Regardless, I my complaint was for being followed around and point making.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Nickhh, Why are you still persisting to follow me, now to a 5th article you never touched before, despite the AE submission? (See:
Nickhh User Contributions-
List of Israeli assassinations)
- Using the talk page instead of the article page might feel right.
- However, when accompanied by tendentiousness it seems like continuation of following after [an editor] to other multiple articles with activity meant
for causing annoyance or distress.:
- "Israel engages in this sort of activity is because it's a vicious, terrorist state" -
Nickhh, 18:06, 13 February 2008.
--
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 20:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Do not quote what I said out of context. Unless you are very stupid, you know exactly the point I was trying to make there. --
Nickhh (
talk) 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Oh, and for your benefit and the benefit of anyone else who's interested, here is a direct (and complete) quote from the
WP:STALK policy that you've rather simplistically accused me of breaching (emphasis added).
Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption.
The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.
Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam). The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter.
The only thing you have even the slightest grounds for even being mildly concerned about is the edit summary on Saeb Erekat (the content of the edit itself is easily justified), which I self reverted within one minute. Thanks. --
Nickhh (
talk) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- For starters, I don't believe your attack on my country was a great contribution and I was offended by it. And secondly, you clearly followed me to yet another article you never edited before, despite the AE notice being opened.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 22:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- p.s. using "Unless you are very stupid" in your comments is something you should at least try to avoid.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Get over yourself. It's like dealing with a sexually frustrated and incontinent adolescent. --
Nickhh (
talk) 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I'm offended by this direct insult.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 11:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
offtopic
Yes, and we know that my name was only mentioned in the case because you felt moved to attempt to discredit my evidence regarding your long-term POV pushing. If someone finds a POV pusher, they are fully entitled to go and correct them wherever they have edited. With regards to the Tomb of Samuel, why did you bother including it in the evidence above if you don't want to mention it?
пﮟოьεԻ
5
7 15:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I changed my earlier comment, and disagree with "the reason" your name got involved. From my perspective, it got involved since you wanted me banned from Middle East articles.
- "I would suggest a Middle East politics topic ban. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)".
- Please don't comment in the future on complaints I post on other editors, since you're not a neutral editor.
- --
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 15:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not a neutral editor? Extremely rich coming from the biggest POV pusher around (which is why I want you banned from Middle East articles). I'd be interested to know what my supposed POV is - am I pro- or anti-Israel?
пﮟოьεԻ
5
7 16:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- And don't move my comments away from the discussion next time.
пﮟოьεԻ
5
7 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Your position on Israeli matters is unrelated to the note that you are non neutral when I'm involved. I figured you'd understand the conflict of interests and stay away from making user directed insults.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 16:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Martinphi (
talk ·
contribs) who is under an editing restriction outlined
here has stalked me from
WTBDWK to
Consciousness causes collapse where he made the following provocative edit:
[38].
Another user pointed out that the effect of Martin's edit was to reinstate a
word to avoid that has scientific implications which is particularly disruptive to an article about pseudoscience. Martin's response was astonishing:
[39] where he states, in part: "That was only meant to reverse the nonconsensus stuff by a blocked user." The reference to "blocked user" refers to my wholly unrelated block for a claimed instance of incivilty in accusing another user of making an edit that looked POV-pushing at cold fusion mediation. The other problem in the reference to "nonconsensus stuff". These attempts by Martin to claim certain edits are "nonconsensus" while others are is a hallmark pattern in the
disruptive editing by users of his *ahem* ilk. It appears to me that Martin is now taking it upon himself to
wikistalk and revert me.
ScienceApologist (
talk) 13:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Response
Wikistalking- Consciousness causes collapse was posted on the Fringe noticeboard
[40]. In addition, I was asked by a friend to look into it. The edit which SA says is disruptive above was merely returning to a version prior to many anti-consensus changes SA had made before his edit warring caused the article to be locked . Here is how I remember it:
Failing to gain consensus on the talk page (
this for example), SA made heavy against-consensus edits to the article.
He edit warred to keep those edits in- I did not participate in that edit war.
The article was protected because of SA's actions
[41]
[42]
[43].
The article was then unprotected because consensus on talk page indicated the need for an AfD tag.
SA was then blocked for 96 hours for unrelated disruption and incivility.
The article was unprotected, and rather than leave the anti-consensus changes in place for days, I reverted the article to about where I thought the last stable version was, and kept an edit I thought was non-controversial. However, I missed one edit at least which should have been retained, as explained on the talk page
[44].
Please note my edit stayed in place- it was a consensus edit.
SA also does not show that I attempted to keep consensus edits by restoring WAS's edit
[45].
I will leave it up to the admins whether this report itself is appropriate and appropriately phrased per SA's own restrictions. ——
Martinphi
☎ Ψ
Φ—— 00:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
I would also request that SA stop doing stuff like
this. There seems to be a perception that any consensus with which SA doesn't agree is disruption- see
this. ——
Martinphi
☎ Ψ
Φ—— 01:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
User:Martinphi wikistalking and harrassment
It has been suggested that this case
[46] be brought here.
[47]. Martinphi has engaged in disruptive editing at
Yi Ching, has falsely accused me of many things including trolling which I find very offensive
[48], has reverted me on Reiki and attempted to assuage this by saying he knows my edit was in good faith
[49], has wikistalked me to
Yi Ching and reverted me with the rude edit statement "egad"
[50] and has removed the POV tag despite the wishes of at least two editors and falsely claiming consensus
[51]. He has also removed from his talkpage my efforts to try to solve these problems
[52]. He also wikistalked me to the project
Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid and made this revert
[53] despite my comments on the takpage standing for a few days.
Mccready (
talk) 01:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Well,
User:75.72.88.121 was already about to be placed on probation on Israel-Palestinian related articles and subsequently blocked for POV pushing (see talk). Well, he's back. One only has to look at
this diff to get an idea of the problem presented here. I would also like to put forth the possibility that this is the same person as
User:Adnanmuf, who returned to edit war with exactly the same text not just once but twice (even if it's not the same person, he clearly should be on probation as well).
The Evil Spartan (
talk) 18:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Blocked Adnanmuf (who took over edit-warring from the IP) for blatant edit-warring. Wagging my finger at The Evil Spartan. We sometimes do need to take quality of edits into account when judging the disruptiveness of revert warring. I'm absolutely aware that in doing this I've broken the formal rule of treating both sides equally. Well, I stand by that.
Fut.Perf.
☼ 19:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- For purposes of arbitration enforcement,
Adnanmuf (
talk ·
contribs) and the IP may be treated as one editor.
Thatcher 20:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- we have been having a problem in the cedar point artical wits a IP address removing a certain Fan Websight called pointbuzz from the links at the bottom of the page his address has changed once if i do recall but it currently is 24.208.247.221
- I dont know how this dispute thing works but it would in my opinion be best to change this to a registered user only attical
- sorry if i braught this up in the wrong place but its the best think i could find please respond to me in my talk page thank you --
Cmedinger (
talk) 19:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The
2008 Kosovo declaration of independence a few days ago touched off (or reignited) a ferocious edit war on
Kosovo that spilled over to
Serbia, the reason being that some asserted that Kosovo was an independent state, while others said it wasn't. It is my understanding that
Kosovo was already under Arbcom probation at the time (whatever that means), and that
Serbia was likely under the same probation, because of earlier assertations along the same lines. Currently, both pages are protected for a week. I'm not at all sure that this was the right thing to do (I am NOT an admin, so don't ask me), and I'm not at all sure that a week's protection is enough (or too much, for that matter). What says Arbcom? —
Rickyrab |
Talk 06:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I'm pretty sure you are thinking of
WP:ARBMAC, which is the ruling for Balkan issues.
Balkan
Fever 08:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Plus,
Kosovo and all related articles have been under permanent Arbitration-imposed article probation anyway, since before ARBMAC. The only thing we can do is to try to use these tools quickly, decisively and judiciously, on whatever article the edit wars spill over to. A useful rule of thumb might be a quick short block for incipient edit warring, and then a medium-length topic ban (like two or three months until the dispute has hopefully abated) for repeat edit-warring offenders, especially those whose talkpage behaviour is either non-existent or openly tendentious.
Fut.Perf.
☼ 09:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
-
Neutral Good banned from waterboarding-related pages for 6 months.
Fresh from a 24 hour block,
Neutral Good (
talk ·
contribs) has continued causing disruptions:
- Neutral Good used
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Waterboarding as a club to attack those editors who did not want to engage in mediation with them. Assumptions of bad faith included:
- "This editor is making excuses to avoid mediation and probably would not participate in good faith under any circumstances."
[118]
- "This involved administrator is already trying to sabotage mediation."
[119]
- Today Neutral Good did an extensive rewrite of
waterboarding, without consensus.
[120] The edit summary was, "This article contained 69 uses of the word "torture." Someone has been making a WP:POINT. I have reduced them."
User:Akhilleus reverted this edit
[121] and left an explanation at
Talk:Waterboarding.
[122]
- Earlier
User:Lar made some interesting observations.
[123]
[124]
- Undeterred by the rejection of
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Waterboarding, Neutral Good has filed
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Waterboarding 2, simply omitting the names of the parties who did not agree with the first request.
It's time for the no-holds-barred warring over this article to be ended. One editor in particular is responsible for creating a
battlezone by using every wikitactic available to try to get their way. Perhaps a topic ban would encourage them to develop other interests and become more familiar with Wikipedia's principles.
Jehochman
Talk 04:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- A six month topic ban for this editor may not be a bad idea. If he is serious about contributing to this project, he will go and edit other articles during that time. If he is not, then it will be obvious what this is all about.
≈ jossi ≈
(talk) 04:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Support
≈ jossi ≈
(talk) 04:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- OK Frankly, I think this is very lenient, but if NG wants to contribute constructively to another topic area, I won't object.
--Akhilleus (
talk) 04:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Support. I've only followed this a little bit, and very recently, but it seems like a clear cut case. By the way, I had to hunt to find the meaning of Topic Ban, found it at
Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Note that the difference between the outright ban and the "community enforced" version is this: "Probation is used as an alternative to an outright topic ban in cases where the editor shows some promise of learning better behavior." Seems to lend credence to Akhilleus' concern, though I also wouldn't object. -
Pete (
talk) 05:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Clarify regarding other suggestions that have come up since my !vote, I would equally support an outright topic ban, a community-enforced ban, for a period of anywhere from one to six months. No preference among those options, I'll respect the judgment of anyone who has a clearer vision of the path forward than myself within those parameters. -
Pete (
talk) 05:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Support Looks like
User:Neutral Good set up the account just to be disruptive to
Waterboarding article and any editor who wants to write about the topic. I hope he can find other areas to edit besides things that have to do with torture.
Igor Berger (
talk) 05:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I support this too. We don't need editors like this.
Fut.Perf.
☼ 07:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Support. Lenient.
Black Kite 07:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
henrik•
talk 07:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
Lawrence §
t/
e 07:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Editors who were accused of making excuses to avoid mediation were in fact making excuses to avoid mediation. You hid behind your false sockpuppet accusations once more; those have now been proven false, to the entire extent that they can be proven false, without me bringing four forms of photo ID to a Wikipedia convention and putting on a slideshow to prove that I am not Bryan Hinnen. In a nutshell, you claim that you don't object to the concept of mediation; you just don't like the person who's proposing it. If that were true, you would proceed with mediation because it is carefully supervised dispute resolution that is intended to resolve a CONTENT DISPUTE. We have a content dispute, people, and this isn't going to make it go away; it will only delay its resolution for another six months. You tried to get rid of me with ArbCom and failed. You've tried to get rid of me three times with your RFCU witch hunts and failed each time. The only purpose this has served is delaying resolution of the content dispute, which may be your real purpose because you enjoy your blatant
WP:NPOV violation and the
America bashing that it provides cover for. Defining waterboarding as torture in the first six words of the article, when there's an active dispute over whether it's torture with mutiple prominent adherents on both sides (see
Jimbo Wales quote in
WP:WEIGHT) is a blatant violation of
WP:NPOV. As if that's not bad enough, using the word "torture" 69 times in an article is definitely
WP:POINT in action. But you're shooting the messenger instead, and then you will continue to wonder why the academic community doesn't take Wikipedia seriously.
Neutral Good (
talk) 10:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The sockpuppet allegations have not been "proven false". The checks run are inconclusive. That is not proof of falsehood. Do not twist my words around, please, you have been warned about this. ++
Lar:
t/
c 13:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Support. Seems about right for what seems to be a "vexatious litigant"--
BozMo
talk 11:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Support. A claim like wikipedia isn't taken seriously in the academic community because waterboarding is described as torture - when there is zero academic debate about the fact that waterboarding is torture - is the final straw for me. The lack of credibility of wikipedia in the academic community has far more to do with the inclusion of nonsense such as a pretense that there is any serious (or notable) debate about the nature of waterboarding outside the realm of politics.
Jay*Jay (
talk) 12:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Although repeated CUs have been inconclusive (preface inserted so that Neutral Good doesn't waste time pointing it out and possibly get blocked by me for violating his warning not to twist my findings around) common consensus seems to be that Neutral Good is just the latest manifestation of long term banned user BryanFromPalatine, or if not, someone closely enough associated with Bryan to easily pass a DUCK test, so I'd suggest that this ban be framed to encompass Neutral Good as well as anyone else who appears here with the same MO, sufficient to pass a new DUCK test... It should also be framed to encompass anything at all torture related. Support whether that extension is endorsed or not but prefer if it is so we waste less time. ++
Lar:
t/
c 13:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
This edit, complete with the repeated removal of the word "torture" from literal quotes, to an article already under article probation, by a single-issue editor with an apparently indefatigable drive to own the article, who has been warned time and time again about disruptive editing, is the last straw. The community has bent over backwards to be fair to this individual over a course of many months: there has to be a limit to patience, and this, for me, was it. --
The Anome (
talk) 17:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I am unclear why this tendentious, disruptive single-purpose account retains any editing privileges at all, given the totality of its history. I would strongly favor an indefinite block, and wold probably have applied one myself at the next blatantly bad-faith action this account undertook. That said, a 6-month topic ban is a lenient but acceptable alternative - provided that it's accompanied by a clear resolve that the next bad-faith, disruptive action, either during the topic ban or thereafter, will result in a lengthy or indefinite block.
MastCell
Talk 18:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I see your point, MastCell. Clearly, the topic ban needs to be accompanied with explicit wording about any further disruption, and the consequences of such disruption such as escalating blocks (1 week, 1 month, 3 months, etc,). If the editor takes the opportunity to reform, that would be great, and if he/she is not, then a site-ban would be the next step.
≈ jossi ≈
(talk) 19:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- 2nd choice, I pity the editors of any new subject area that receives this editor's "attention". Foisting this disruption into a different arena just moves the problem around.
R. Baley (
talk) 18:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I would imagine that were that to happen, the next step would be a permanent community ban. --
The Anome (
talk) 18:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I believe a topic ban is far more effective than a block, assuming the at times gross incivility stops immedediately. Dorftrottel (
harass) 18:41,
February 25, 2008
- Support: He has clearly tested the patience of many editors, and a topic ban may be the method of choice. Further vios. at either waterboarding or any other article should be accompanied by an indef. block.
seicer |
talk |
contribs 22:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Support Normally i would oppose such a lengthy ban but seen as this is a SPA, it may be good for this editor to make other helpful contributions to wikipedia not linked to this article without the accusations and political bias that continues even on this page, to prove that the account doesn't exist soley to push a POV on this particular article. --neonwhite
user page
talk 00:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- One month I would suggest a one month ban as the next step. That would give him time to cool off and consider our requirement for civility. If he doesn't meet our standards of behavior then, a permanent ban would be the appropriate next step and would be easier to gain approval for since the matter will still be fresh in peoples' minds. --
agr (
talk) 03:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Topic ban now in force
User:MastCell has now formally imposed the topic ban discussed above: see
User talk:Neutral Good. --
The Anome (
talk) 13:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Ducks
Shibumi2 (
talk ·
contribs), proven sock puppeteer and suspected sock of BryanFromPalatine, has reappeared on the scene. They are rewriting
waterboarding to reduce the number of times the word torture is used.
[125] It's as if this account is the alter ego of
Neutral Good (
talk ·
contribs). Neutral Good gets into hot water, and then suddenly, the same disruptive activity shifts to a different account. I suggest extending the above ban to cover Shibumi2 as well as any other duck-like accounts that carry on the same activity.
Jehochman
Talk 22:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Sounds good let them go work on something else and stop being fixated on one topic. It sure looks like these people have an alternative motive for editing Wikipedia.
Igor Berger (
talk) 23:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Support... but ensure that they are given notice of a possible topic ban upon first offence, and include a link to the prior disputes with Natural Good.
seicer |
talk |
contribs 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose What is disruptive about my activity?
Shibumi2 (
talk) 23:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Support. The author of
this edit is clearly not interested in writing an encyclopedia. This degree of mindless POV-pushing is beyond tolerable.
Fut.Perf.
☼ 23:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. If we think that Shibumi2 is an "alternate account" of Neutral Good, why are we bothering with topic bans? If someone is using sockpuppets to get around a block, we don't stop with topic bans.
--Akhilleus (
talk) 23:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- As I said above
(why are we using numbers here instead of bullets ? :) ) I think we should topic ban any account that passes the DUCK test. Which Shibumi2 does. So the ban should be worded that way if at all possible. ++
Lar:
t/
c 23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I understand that, but if Shibumi2 passes the duck test, he's violating NG's block. I suppose I'm just saying that if I were an uninvolved administrator, we would not be discussing topic bans; we would be reviewing my indefinite block of both accounts. But I am involved in the "content dispute", such as it is.
--Akhilleus (
talk) 23:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Nod. The community is doing an extraordinary amount of bending over backwards here. For which it is to be commended (everyone, give your neighbor a hug!). Probably won't work but no one can say the community didn't try. ++
Lar:
t/
c 00:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I am all for loving my brother, and I was prepared to make some apologies as promised in the RFAR based on the RFCU "technical" findings by Lar, but this just takes the cake, and then stomps the boot into it above and beyond that. Tired Support.
Lawrence §
t/
e 00:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
I'm going to take action here, under the provisions of the
Arbitration case and the feedback above, and ban
Neutral Good (
talk ·
contribs) from all pages in all namespaces related to
waterboarding (loosely construed) for 6 months for extensive disruption. Violation of the ban will result in an indefinite block, as will further disruptive editing outside the topic area or after expiration of the ban. I'm not going to take action regarding
Shibumi2 (
talk ·
contribs) at this point; I think there is suggestive, but not conclusive, evidence linking these two accounts. I am going to place Shibumi2 on notice that disruptive editing will result in a ban or block, but I don't see evidence of such disruption on Shibumi's part at present that would warrant such a sanction. I am open to hearing more evidence of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry between Shibumi2 and Neutral Good which would warrant a revision of these sanctions, but for now I'm not seeing enough. I will post notice of these sanctions to the involved users' talk pages and log it at the Arbitration page.
MastCell
Talk 00:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Just a note on Shibumi2, in case some were not aware. Neutral Good (as detailed in the RFCU/RFAR evidence) nominated him for adminship. Shibumi2 also goes out of his way to routinely push one of BryanFromPalatine's
very specific agendas.
Lawrence §
t/
e 00:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Dealing with ducks and AE
What is the usual practice with AE and dealing with ducks, if one decides to return to their original moulting, mating, and fishing habits with a shiny new set of feathers (in particular, if those feathers prove immune to technical Checkuser confirmation due to proxies or dynamic IPs)?
Lawrence §
t/
e 00:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Depends. Personally, I think these articles have seen enough abusive sockpuppetry etc that I'd be fairly quick to restrict or block an account that meets criteria. Are you referring to Shibumi2, or to potential new socks taking the place of Neutral Good?
MastCell
Talk 00:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I'm referring to both.
Lawrence §
t/
e 06:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- There may be admins more familiar with the situation willing to block both Neutral Good and Shibumi2 as sock- or meatpuppets. I'm not quite there with the evidence I've seen here, though it is quite suggestive. I wouldn't object to such a block, but I don't see enough to take the responsibility of placing and defending such a block myself either. I'll watch Shibumi2 closely with regard to the terms of the probation, and I'm happy to stomp on any new socks which appear.
MastCell
Talk 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- If there is simlar disruption by these users, then extending the ban to them will be appropriate. I move to close this discussion now.
≈ jossi ≈
(talk) 03:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The discussion above 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.
- The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
- Closed as hopelessly muddled and unreadable. Interested parties are urged to write a short, coherent, complete report with clearly applicable diffs.--
Stephan Schulz (
talk) 23:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
User
ScienceApologist has been conducting a discrediting attack campaign against me and other editors including "invitations to leave the topic", "toeing the line" borderline incivility and repeated denigrations of other editor's contributions, just now culminating in
this edit. At least six more diffs from the last few days will be provided as time allows.
WNDL42 (
talk) 17:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- As a sidenote and for context, SA's attack is being supported in almost an identical pattern of incivil edits by
USER:KWW; I will also be posting diffs here in which SA and KWW "echo" one another.
WNDL42 (
talk) 17:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Additional diffs posted by Wndl42 (in no particular order):
(1),
(2),
(3),
(4),
(5),
(6),
(7), [
(8),
(9)
this extended diff (10) contains six personal attacks as part of an extended and personally directed diatribe in which SA repeatedly sidesteps arguments, presents faulty sources, and when found out, SA resorts to further personal attacks to avoid acknowledging embarassing error. The personal attacks are combined with "milder" forms of denigration such as
Straw Man attacks to conceal the fact that SA's deceptive use of a source he knew was faulty had been shown to refute his own argument. Some keywords to search for include "ignorance", "fuck" and those interested enough to actually follow this tortured diatribe will see incessant use of the "straw man" to discredit editors. The final
extended diff (11) I will present here involves SA's similarly failed attempt (on and around January 9) to cite Rosenblum and Kuttner's "Quantum Enigma", and when I demonstrated that his use of that text similarly did not support his argument (in fact, contradicted his argument), SA attacked me on my talk page in the diff found above (ref "I'm sorry you are ignorant"). SA repeatedly uses personal attacks and low-grade denigrations as "smoke screens" to cover areas in which his purported knowledge of science is not equal to the image he attempts to maintain here on Wikipedia. The final diff supporting my complaint here will be posted within the hour. (...more coming)
In the extended diff (11) above, some keywords directed by SA at editors arguing against SA's faulty assertions include "bullshit", "if you cannot understand", "idiocy", and all in the context of what I think was some very real and intelligent debate over the topic. In this case, when SA's discrediting attack failed, when his source was shown to contradict him, and when his command of the topic from a physics standpoint became questionable, he visited my talk page and posted the "I'm sorry you are ignorant..." and "you should take some classes" comments. The incident came up shortly thereafter here at ArbCom (brought by another editor), SA was asked to apologize, did not do so, and here we are now. FYI all, I stayed completely out of that Arbcom, at the time I was still convinced that SA would change his behavior.. I was wrong.
WNDL42 (
talk) 00:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Of the three diffs posted, only one seems to be from SA, and none seems to be particularly incivil. Civility, at least in Wikipedia, does not mean that one has to refrain from commenting on other edits. --
Stephan Schulz (
talk) 19:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- As I said above, I am collecting the diffs -- it will require a couple of hours as I am otherwise engaged (it's a workday). The diffs added are to illustrate the context in which this long and pernicious history of low-level discrediting attacks are taking place.
WNDL42 (
talk) 19:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Has SA been informed of this thread?
--Akhilleus (
talk) 19:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
It appears that an anon IP (130.101.20.xxx) informed SA at 00:12, 26 February of this merit-less thread.
R. Baley (
talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Strike: my bad that was a different poking incident.
R. Baley (
talk) 19:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)For the record: My comment was removed by Wndl42
here. I restored my comment
here. Man, I sure don't like having my comments removed, is that another poke?
R. Baley (
talk) 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I don't see the problem with this diff. He has commented on your edit categorizing it as OR. Something we all sometimes do often unknowingly. The second KWW diff is not by KWW.
Anthon01 (
talk) 19:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- See above...thanks.
WNDL42 (
talk) 19:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
No one would accuse me of being an advocate for SA - this complaint is without merit. I would like to note that this is the Arbitration Enforcement page - SA's ArbCom sanctions don't mention 'discrediting attacks', and I don't believe that discrediting someone's position through discourse is contrary to WP policy, nor should it be.
Dlabtot (
talk) 19:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I would offer a contrasting view
here, and suggest it be considered in the context of history
here.
WNDL42 (
talk) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Just notified SA. As a note, it is required to notify the other parties of an AE case so that they may be able to voice their opinion.
seicer |
talk |
contribs 19:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Another day, another attempt to get me punished.
ScienceApologist (
talk) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Seriously, when will someone stand up and stop this inane activity? Every 2-3 days, someone comes here and starts complaining that SA was mean to me or wasn't civil in his communications. And the cases are getting weaker and weaker and weaker! If those links are honestly the extent of the misbehavior, this is the worst case of poking that SA has been subjected too. Why doesn't someone stand up and punish these people who are obviously board shopping for an SA block?
Baegis (
talk) 20:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I know it's annoying to you, but you do understand I get great amusement out of the constant attacks, because it's always the same. Whine about SA. The Anti-Science POV pushers are fun to watch. Back to real science articles.
OrangeMarlin
Talk•
Contributions 20:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Orangemarlin's comment is appreciated in that it allows an illustration of the larger point. Normally a comment such as this, accompanied by a personal denigration of the editor as an "Anti-Science POV pusher" would be accompanied by a diff. As it is not, and as Orangemarlin comments frequently in support of incivility, I would present the comment in this context:
Symptoms of groupthink
In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).
- Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
- Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
- Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
- Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
- Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".
- Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
- Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
- Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wndl42 (
talk •
contribs) 20:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Seriously, is this why you came here, to insult everyone that does not agree with you about SA's actions? If so, what a phenomenal waste of the community's time! I move to have this whole thing stricken.
Baegis (
talk) 20:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- No, I was merely responding to and contextualizing an unfounded personal attack against me here by Orangemarlin. Would you suggest I should have let it stand?
WNDL42 (
talk) 20:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Baegis, you accuse me above of being "inane" and "obviously board shopping", while I have been patient and patiently awaiting -- and encouraging a change in behavior from SA since he first attacked me MONTHS ago. My patience is exhausted and that is why I am here.
WNDL42 (
talk) 20:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Wndl42 - please don't waste time posting diffs by others. There is a case with remedies SA is subject to, but they do not apply generally to editors in the topic area. If the WP:AE admins need context for his diffs, we know how to use the history page. As one of the recent WP:AE admins to block SA under those sanctions, trust me that the diffs will be read when you finish presenting them. But in posting diffs by others, you are wasting your own time and ours.
- Everyone - SA is subject to the remedies in that case. Debating each other here before the diffs are fully presented is not helpful. I'm sure you all can find better things to be doing.
GRBerry 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Wndl42 stated in his opening that SA's edits "culminated" with this
. "Culminated". . . reached it's highest point, the worst of the worst. Everybody is just supposed to sit around while he finds the kitchen sink to substantiate that non-claim?
R. Baley (
talk) 20:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- GRBerry, thanks -- this is my first time here. I'm not sure how to address personal attacks leveled against me here and that is the reason (or my excuse, if you will) I give for posting them. KWW was included for reasons I hope to make clear as we progress. I see no way of separating SA's extended discrediting attacks outside of the context of what I see (rightly or wrongly) as his "supporting cast". If there is a different forum for this I will take it there, on your advisement.
WNDL42 (
talk) 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- As of yet, Kww has yet to be informed of the existence of this complaint. Still, he eagerly awaits his outing as a part of a vast conspiracy to insist on proper sourcing and legitimate science. I can imagine the diffs that Wndl42 will provide to bolster his complaint, and, in advance, will say that while I find debating things with Wndl42 to be one of the most frustrating things I have ever done on Wikipedia, I have remained civil. The diff he provided of me in the intro is probably the closest to a
WP:CIVIL violation I have gotten to with him, and that still didn't cross the line.
Kww (
talk) 20:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- R. Baley, in the context you present "culminated" it was a poor choice of words on my part. I should have conveyed the idea of "culminated" in the sense of a "last straw". Thanks for helping me clarify.
WNDL42 (
talk) 20:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- R. Baley, I'm sorry but I don't understand your objection to my removing
this comment you made, as you had came back yourself to say it was unrelated to the present incident. Can you help me understant why it belongs here?
WNDL42 (
talk) 21:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Let me sweetly request, with the utmost civility, that you not ever touch, refactor, or
move, or
remove my comment(s). The 3rd time will be the charm. Thanks,
R. Baley (
talk) 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Complaints here seem to be without merit. Case dismissed?
William M. Connolley (
talk) 21:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
User:Wndl42 you need to relax and have
WP:TEA. Go do some edits instead of getting angry with someone because they do not agree with you.
Igor Berger (
talk) 21:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- We should not do that until Wndl42 finishes making the complaint. There is no reason for any discussion by anyone until the "more coming" note is removed by him/her from the list of diffs.
GRBerry 21:21, 26 February 2008
- If this is all moot until more diffs are provided, then its best removed until then. What exactly is the point of having it hanging around?
William M. Connolley (
talk) 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- This page must be like a sandbox. . .
R. Baley (
talk) 21:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Note:
William M. Connolley archived this section, and I have restored it so that it can be closed and archived in the normal manner. If there is no damning evidence, there is no reason for everyone to be commenting here. Go do something else. This is not ANI.
John Vandenberg (
talk) 22:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Just for the record, I was about to close this as a clear non-violation of Arbcom rulings on SA, but Stephan beat me to it. —
Rlevse •
Talk • 23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The discussion above 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.
- The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
- blocked and unblocked, has run its course
I am making a formal complaint about ScienceApologist because of his comment at
[126]. I am co-director of the AA-EVP
[127] and an active researcher in the field of EVP/ITC. He knows I monitor the EVP article, and so I am assuming that he intended his comments to me and my fellow researchers as a personal insult. This belief is further supported by a subsequent edit by SA:
[128]
Alone, this event could be considered an editor having a bad day, but he has used the same tone many times and his active expression of this attitude in his edits has become an obstruction. At best, it make it very difficult to work in such an environment. There has been at least one judgement against him here
[129].
Can you assist me in finding a way of stopping this direct assault on both my character ad the character of the thousands of people around the world who study paranormal subjects?
Tom Butler (
talk) 00:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I apologized, struckthrough the comment, and am trying to move on. What more do you want from me?
ScienceApologist (
talk) 02:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- ...
WP:WQA#Complaint against ScienceApologist? This is more of a civility issue that has since been corrected by SA retracting the comment and apologising. What more do you want?
seicer |
talk |
contribs 02:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
I agree with seicer. If an editor ameliorates a problem, we do not punish. Do you have reason to believe that there will be imminent recurrences for which we must block the user to prevent harm? I don't see it. Also, what are you talking about? The alphabet soup has me confused.
Jehochman
Talk 02:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I received this
comment on my talk page. Stating to someone that they are "making things up" is a very far reach of a
personal attack.
seicer |
talk |
contribs 02:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Blocked for 96 hours for breaking arbcom civility and AGF restrictions. SA only struck the comment after the AN/AE thread was started
[130]. Obviously the previous shortened block did not have the desired effect. SA is not allowed to be incivil and then strike comments - the arbcom case requires that SA is careful to AGF and be civil. In reviewing SA's other recent contribs, I noticed other problems I will note here shortly.
John Vandenberg (
talk) 03:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Two additional aspects of SA's recent contribs stand out - I found many other problems, but here are two that characterise the user conduct.
SA is involved in a content dispute on
What the Bleep Do We Know!?, and has been resorting to incivil behaviour, with snide remarks in the edit summary.
[131]
Also, on
Talk:Parapsychology#Problems_with_the_revised_lead, SA has been advocating that other users comments be "taken with a grain of salt"
[132], and has repeated accusations of COI that have been decided by the community to be unsupported at
WP:COIN (Archive 19). Note that her user page clearly states her potential for COI - so any editor can evaluate it for themself - SA does not need to use this in order to request that editors disregard her opinions.
John Vandenberg (
talk) 03:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The edit summary on
What the Bleep Do We Know is not a violation of
WP:CIVIL in any way. He is not making a comment about an editor ... he's making a comment about a project manager with a BS in Engineering Science that lists his job as "research physicist" in his press releases and bio. "Fraud" would have been quite appropriate.
Kww (
talk) 03:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I didnt say that edit summary was a violation of
WP:CIVIL - I said it was a snide remark, about a living person. How do you know that the person is not a Wikipedia editor? It was unnecessarily inflammatory, which lead to an edit war.
John Vandenberg (
talk) 03:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- That edit summary is pretty borderline, and seems to fall well on the side of "direct expression of relevant opinion" rather than "sanctionable incivility". As SA withdrew the inappopriate comment in question and apologized, this block has a fairly punitive feel to it. I'm not going to undo it, but I'd urge reconsideration.
MastCell
Talk 04:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I agree. In the original WQA complaint, TomButler referred to SA's comments as "the sign of a sociopath" so there's bad blood on both sides of this dispute, and the OP came to WQA clearly seeking for SA to be severely punished (he originally asked for him to be banned from all paranormal articles). SA's comment was clearly not called for, but it was retracted and he apologized, and from what I've seen elsewhere on Wiki, such a comment would not normally be considered a blockable personal attack. Please reconsider.
DanielEng (
talk) 07:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I think this editor gets too many do overs. The comment was uncivil and he is under an Arbcom restriction. The edit summary seems at first borderline, because he wasn't commenting on an involved editor. I understand John Vandenberg's comment that it is still a personal attack and the editor could be a wiki editor.
Anthon01 (
talk) 07:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I think it is worth noting the time line here:
-
Original comment made at 0237 (UTC) 22 Feb by
user:ScienceApologist
-
WQA report made at 2238 (UTC) 22 Feb by
user:Tom Butler - Tom does not post a notification to ScienceApologist of the report
-
user:Randy Blackamoor responds on WQA at 0043 (UTC) on 23 Feb. Tom respons on
Randy's talk page 11 minutes later, and then on
WQA after a further 2 minutes. Randy responds to Tom on WQA after another 2 minutes.
- Discussions then continue for more than another 25 hours involving
user:Leadwind,
user:Fill,
user:Seicer,
user:Wndl42,
user:Anynobody,
user:Martinphi, and
user:DanielEng. During this time, no one thinks to inform ScienceApologist that a complainst has been filed at WQA.
- At 0203 (UTC) 24 Feb, Seicer notifies ScienceApologist on his talk page, and notes this fact in the WQA discussion 1 minute later.
- 13 minutes after notification, ScienceApoologist posts the
first of
three
edits on WQA in response, which includes an undertaking to refactor. It seems that ScienceApologist responded as soon as he was made aware of the report, and had struck the comments by 0222 (UTC) 24 Feb
[133] - thus the promised refactoring occurred within 4 minutes of leaving WQA.
- It turns out that Tom Butler posted a complaint to
WP:AE about ScienceApologist 1 h 11 min before Seicer notified ScienceApologist of the WQA report. As with the WQA report, Tom did not post any notice for ScienceApologist of the AE report. Seicer notifies ScienceApologist of the AE report 15 minutes after the refactoring is made, and ScienceApologist responds on AE 1 minute later (at 0238) stating that he "apologized, struckthrough the comment, and am trying to move on". In issuing his 96 h block (at
0305),
John Vandenberg states on AE that "SA only struck the comment after the AN/AE thread was started", which is technically true. However, John states on ScienceApologist's talk page that his "post on AN/AE mischaracterises your handling of this matter. You clearly did not intend to strike your comment prior to this." This is not supported by the evidence. The comment was struck prior to ScienceApologist being informed of the AE report, and occurred immediately after he was informed of the WQA report. John, you have unfairly judged ScienceApologist's actions here.
- Both WQA and AE procedures require the user being complained about to be notified via their talk page. Tom Butler did not do this in either case, and should be at least admonished for this failure. Depending on how commonly he has previously made WQA and AE reports (about which I have no idea), a more serious sanction may also be warranted.
- It is also worth noting that the
talk page where the comment was made appears to have no request for ScienceApologist to refactor, either by Tom Butler himself or by any other contributor to that page.
- In other words, ScienceApologist refactored immediately on being advised that a concern had been raised. Tom Butler, as the complaining party, did not request refactoring where the comment was made, nor on ScienceApologist's talk page> He did make reports at WQA and then later at AE, both without notifying ScienceApologist, whilst engaging in talk page discussion of the issue with both
Randy Blackamoor and
Raymond Arritt. John Vandenberg, you should immediately re-evaluate your block - I think you have made a mistake, and might even have not accorded ScienceApologist the assumption of good faith. You should also do something in response to Tom Butler's actions.
Jay*Jay (
talk) 08:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- What is at issue here is that per
WP:RFAR(Martinphi-ScienceApologist), SA is not supposed to be incivil. Arbcom didnt say "you may be incivil provided that you strike your comments later". SA is supposed to be careful to avoid ABF and incivility. I don't see that. Do you see that?
- When I pointed out that SA didnt strike the comments until it was raised here, I was not implying that my decision was primarily based on the fact that he had delayed striking until it was raised here. I was noting that SA's response here was mischaracterising the situation; SA made it sound as if this had already been dealt with, and that raising it on AN/AE was inappropriate. The fact is that it hadnt been corrected before that time.
- The real problem is that SA is continually using "borderline" incivility, and it is usually being used to inappropriately dominate an article or discussion. Enough is enough.
This talk comment is incivil to every single editor who might believe in that topic. That is no different from atheists going to talk pages about religions and saying that anyone who believes in the religion is a pack of morons.
This apology is not good enough. Many other diffs are also unacceptable. Do you want me to list them all?? Talk pages are not an avenue for attacking other editors; talk pages are there to discuss the content, and should be done in a civil manner. If SA needs practise in debating skills, I am sure that the local
Toastmasters will be welcoming -- wiki talk pages are not the place to exercise those skills.
- The point of the arbcom case was the prevent this type of behaviour. It's not working; the behaviour exhibited at the time of the last block is still occurring. The last block was shortened, so I have been cautious and blocked for the same period as the previous block. The purpose of escalating duration of blocks is to persuade editors to improve the way they interact with others. Hopefully this block will convince SA that the mission to protect the wiki does not supersede the arbcom outcome that SA is under restrictions due to prior bad conduct.
John Vandenberg (
talk) 09:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Re: JV's comment "I was noting that SA's response here was mischaracterising the situation; SA made it sound as if this had already been dealt with, and that raising it on AN/AE was inappropriate."
Just so everyone's clear that SA didn't mischaracterize anything, a timeline:
- 00:52, 24 February --TB's original post to AE (this is the time stamp seen at top of thread).
[134]
- 02:03, 24 February --Science Apologist is informed of the (1+ day old) WQA thread by seicer.
- 02:09, 24 February --TB Removes post at AE.
[135]
- 02:16, 24 February 2008 --SA apologizes at WQA.
[136]
- 02:22, 24 February 2008 --ScienceApologist strikes offending part of comment.
[137]
- 02:27, 24 February --TB reposts but with original (00:52) time stamp.
[138]
- 02:38, 24 February --ScienceApologist re-iterates apology at AE (11 minutes after 2nd AE post by TomButler).
[139]
Submitted by
R. Baley (
talk) 12:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
I fully endorse this block. John Vandenberg is spot on. —
Rlevse •
Talk • 14:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
I don't endorse it at all. John Vandenberg seems to be working up a lather from very little indeed. At worst, we have something that merits a warning (and I'm not even sure about that). A 96-hour block is ludicrous. --
Hoary (
talk) 14:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I do not endorse a 96h block. At the most, for using the word "moron" in a term that is not derogatory towards another editor, it would have warranted a warning if that. Most of those involved outside of SA have been those involved either with the article itself,
Electronic Voice Phenomenon, or are involved in the Wikiproject itself and have a vested interest in seeing this editor leave the project or become blocked indef.
seicer |
talk |
contribs 14:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Side note: I've left a note on the original poster's talk page regarding the lack of notices given to SA at WQA and AE.
seicer |
talk |
contribs 14:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Taken alone and if the first time SA did this sort of thing, I'd agree, but SA has a long, long history of this sort of behavior of pushing the envelope and prior blocks have not worked, he continues in this sort of behavior. There is also a request for mediation in which he was the only one who didn't agree to it and another where he said he'd only agree if the mediator were a scientist. I'll look up the diffs later today on these. These show his unwillingness to work this out with others in this collaborative encyclopedia. That is why this block is justified. —
Rlevse •
Talk • 15:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- There's a great big gap between unwilling to work with others and unwilling to work with people that think their radios are haunted. Perhaps Wikipedia could focus a bit on how to get such people to stop editing, and then the rest of us could have an easier time living under the constraints of
WP:CIVIL.
Kww (
talk) 15:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- That comment would be offensive to those people and shows that you do not understand that wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. The way to live with WP:CIVIL is to be civil, not cut out an entire group of people just because they don't agree with you. Not to mention SA's failure to apologize to Annalisa after several polite requests, including from a totally uninvolved admin. —
Rlevse •
Talk • 15:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I will first apologize to SA for not notifying him. I had assumed an admin did that and I had no desire to risk his aggressive response back at me. I posted this complaint at the bottom and then realized it was supposed to be at the top. I gather I did that wrong as well--didn't think of the time stamp.
- When I tried seeking advice from the etiquette page, I immediately ran into what seemed like a wisecrack. Already irritated that I had to take time away from my other duties, I was deeply saddened that an editor would respond in that fashion--attack the person not respond to the point. The discussion went downhill from there as many of the editors seemed to agree with SA and Blackamoor.
- SA has been an abusive editor toward me and others since I began editing over a year ago. I have a hard time believing in his recantation. He later accused me of making up "all kinds of things": "AAEVP is not quite good enough to source this. They make up all kinds of things at their website. What would be best is if we found someone who didn't believe in EVP reporting on the classification scheme (per
WP:FRINGE#Independent sources). Barring that, if we could find one of the people mentioned in our article (like Raudive, for example) who used the classification scheme, at least that would be more authoritative than some website that Tom Butler made up one day.
ScienceApologist (
talk) 16:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)"
[140]. That is identical to saying that I lied. He did not strike that.
reply
- Some of you seem to be trying to excuse SA by finding fault with me. There is no doubt bad blood between us, but I am not the one who has decided to ... well it is hard too describe what without stepping over the edge. If you think it is okay to call any group of people morons, then perhaps we have a more systemic problem here. It is obvious that other editors take the lead from those who so easily ridicule others and follow with their own name calling. Are some of you saying that other editors should just get think skins? Don't forget that many unregistered people simply read the talk pages. What do you want them to see? Do you like anarchy?
Tom Butler (
talk) 17:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
ScienceApologist emailed me, asking me to review this block. 12 hours is more than suffecient given the triviality of what he did, that he immediately revised it when asked, and that he wasn't notified about the thread on this page. As such, I've unblocked him.
Raul654 (
talk) 17:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- There's way more involved here than that one issue. —
Rlevse •
Talk • 18:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Addition: I have another issue to raise in regards to SA's behaviour. SA has been involved with
mediation on cold fusion, which I am mediating. But his comments at my RfA, such as
this, are deeply disturbing. "I was concerned (and still am concerned) that he was being way too accommodating of the fringe POV in the mediation." In other words, he feels that taking into consideration the opposing parties comments and edits are now too accommodating and is representative of
bad faith. His comments are bordering upon
misplaced criticism. I'm not looking for any administrative action, just a few notes in regards if this specifically is a continuing issue with SA?
seicer |
talk |
contribs 22:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- A reply has since been posted. You can disregard the above.
seicer |
talk |
contribs 23:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
With a blocklog
such as this, the community is showing a tremendous amount of leniency. SA is not helping his cause by getting dinged every other week. This needs to stop.
≈ jossi ≈
(talk) 05:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Following further consideration and a discussion with
John Vandenberg, I hold the view that the block was justified -
ScienceApologist was under an ArbCom restriction to be civil, and the edit in question was not. I am generally sympathetic to SA's views on science. Like him, I deplore the selective enforcement of
WP:CIVIL while failing to effective enforce policies including (but not limited to)
WP:NPOV,
WP:RS,
WP:V,
WP:FRINGE,
WP:UNDUE, and
WP:TE. However, under the present circumstances, giving ammunition to tendentious editors is unwise (note: this comment does not relate to any particular user or circumstance); nevertheless, ignoring ArbCom restrictions is unacceptable. SA has done both, and for the latter, deserved to be blocked.
However, I also believe that much of the controversy here was caused not be the intemperate words of SA, but rather by the poorly expressed initial explanations provided by John Vandenberg. By justifying the block based on the timing of the striking of the comments - after this thread had begun - and failing to recognise that SA had not been notified, John created the appearance of an injustice. John's explanation on SA's talk page is worse, because it draws a conclusion about intent that the evidence above refutes. If John had stated that the block was for the ArbCom violation, that striking the comment did not matter because it was the original post that was the violation, and that other examples were available, much of this discussion could have been avoided.
Jay*Jay (
talk) 13:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The discussion above 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.