Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20

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

State terrorism shows lots of edit warring in its history. It is highly unstable.

The history shows Giovanni33 has been quite involved in this. John Smith's has many edits to the talk page recently, but few to the article page. I myself gave both users a final warning on 01 Feb. I find Giovanni33 did revert twice and has edit warred on this article and John Smith's has not. Therefore I am blocking Giovanni33 72 hours. I highly encourage both editors to learn to settle their differences.

Giovanni33 has been placed on revert parole (1 a week, per article).

Giovanni has been edit-warring at the State terrorism and the United States article again.

Revert number 1:

07:26, 9 April 2008

Revert number 2:

06:55, 13 April 2008

The article is controversial enough as it is, but Giovanni persists in reverting. In the past I have asked him to not revert and seek consensus for his edits given the controversial nature of the page. Indeed I have not reported him on occasion. But he doesn't seem to be listening.

I am informing him of the report, so he will have the opportunity to self-revert. Even though other editors have fought over the text he restored in his last reversion, it is still there so he can remove it. If he removes it, it may also help stop the edit-warring as editors that share his position may not then put the text back. If he does self-revert a block won't be necessary. But he has been warned and blocked in the past - I'm not sure what can change his behaviour. An admin taking charge over the long-term might help. John Smith's (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your 7:55 13APR diff does not exist....???? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh it does, but my editing is terrible. Should work now. John Smith's (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Note, it's 6:55, not 7:55, I fixed the visible link. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! John Smith's (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've full protected the article as there seems to be an edit war going on. I'll wait til Giovanni responds here before proceeding further. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Rlevse. John Smith's (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The way John put it is not quite right, i.e. that I 'persist in reverting," and that I'm not seeking consensuses on talk, etc. These are not true. However, in looking at the edit I made, I agree that unlike his other reports, this time it is a real revert on my part--even though it was not my intention to do so. What I intended to do was only add a missing reference to one section, (the Ortiz section), but I did it quickly not realizing that Ultramarine who had made the edit on the basis of the missing citation, in fact, made other changes, which in my providing the citation to support the section, reverted other changes as well. I explained this on talk after I saw that my edit was in fact a revert in violation of my 1RR.

So in short: yes, I am guilty as charged, but did not do so intentionally, and I discussed this at talk and will be happy to continue to use the talk page to build badly needed consensus for this article. Still, I'll not complain, and will take any block that is felt to be necessary as a man. I'll add that I would have self reverted after I found out, which was right away, but since the article was unstable at that point, I my edit was simply reverted back anyway right away, and I unable to so myself. I agree the article should have been kept protected, and protection now was a good decision until more discussion on talk stabilizes it. I do hope I'll still be able to help contribute to the talk page for that purpose now that the article is locked. In short if this is punitive, I should get a block, as it was my mistake. However, its preventative, a block is not necessary given my acknowledgment of my mistake, my intention and willingness to self revert, my being in the middle of talk page discussions, and the the fact that article is locked make it moot. Whatever you decide, though, I'll fully respect with no hard feelings. Thank you.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, we can nitpick over the definition of "persist", but you do keep reverting on that article. I'm not sure how often you revert, but given the fact there are so many editors working on it there is no real need. If it was just you and a few other guys on a page that was rarely visited, ok I could understand the need to revert once a week when some bozo comes along to make annoying changes that you can't argue are vandalism. But we're not dealing with that here.

Also, I am unsure how you could have reverted without realising what you were doing. Your reversion was about 90 minutes after Ultramarine's edit, so the only way to have done what you did was to click on the old version or the "undo" function. Also the reversion made changes across the article, not just that one section. Furthermore, DHeyward notified you about the possibility of breaking your revert parole. You replied to that message, so you were aware of what the situation was. If you really would have self-reverted when you found out, you would have done so then. But you didn't.

About the protection, it was done purely to allow this report to be dealt with. Once it has been processed I think Rlevse will lift it. And I suppose the whole point of arbitration restrictions is that they are preventative by forcing users not to break the rules. If they have to be blocked to learn, then I guess that's the only way. And you can't complain that you haven't been treated fairly in regards to breaches of the revert parole in the past. John Smith's (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats not true, John. DHeyward immediately reverted me, and THEN went to the talk page to inform me. So I could not self revert. Take a look at the sequence:

1. 07:28, 13 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:State terrorism and the United States‎ (→Sister Oritz material removed against consensus)
2. 07:22, 13 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ (→MONGO has retired)
3. 07:06, 13 April 2008 (hist) (diff) State terrorism and the United States‎ (Undid revision 205283148 by Giovanni33 (talk)Your new source was published even before the court case. Hardly reliable.)

So, you see, how was I to self revert after being notified by DHeward if he already did so? My response, was that I did not intend to and would not revert him. I explained that I was mislead by Ultramarine's edit summary which suggested the only issue was the missing citation linking Sister Ortiz to the U.S. He was right and that source was not added so I simply went back to my version and added the citation, satisfying the reason he objected. Again, I'm not here to argue what I did was not wrong, only that I would have reverted, it was not intentionally a revert in spirit, and I'll take any punishment that is felt necessary now. But factually you insinuate several things that are not true. I have been very active on the talk page and edits in in that context. Its interesting that you mention reverts, because you are also on the same parole restriction, yet you keep reverting too within limit on that page (which you followed me over to), and you hardly use the talk page to discuss the content issues, as I have. But I'm not here to point fingers at you, or report you, argue with you over hypocrisy, etc. However, your past reports were not reverts, including the one you say you did not report me for: because I was not guilty. This time, however, I admit I am guilty of a technical violation. So lets not continue to bicker here about other things. I have no desire to argue with you. Lets talk about article content issues instead. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noted DHeyward's reversion - I thought that a self-reversion could still be made if another user had reinstated what you had done (i.e. a self-reversion is impossible only when the page version does not include the changes you made). However, I didn't realise that he'd only told you after he had reverted. I suppose you still could have said something to acknowledge you had broken the parole, rather than wait until I filed a report on it.

I did not say here that you revert without using the talk page. I questioned whether you need to be reverting when you do. As for myself, I have reverted on the page. But the last two times were when IP editors were getting involved and causing trouble. That was on 8th April and 22nd March - hardly pushing my revert parole. John Smith's (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If another editor who reverted DHeward, later on, and then I go and revert him in favor of DHeward, that is just another violation,another revert, and I'm just continuing the edit war, instead of focusing on the talk page, which I did instead. When it was pointed out my edit was a revert, it was too late to do anything about, but I did, or thought I did, acknowledge that was not my intention and I was mislead by the edit summary, since it was not my intention to undo the edit, but simply to add the citation. If it would help, Ill go make a statement on talk to this point more clearly?Giovanni33 (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant to say something before you had been reported to pre-empt action being taken. But anyway, never mind - let's see what decision is made here. John Smith's (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There have been several similar incidents earlier where Giovanni33 has reverted and then when reported here claims innocence, mistakes and being persecuted. [1] [2] [3] Ultramarine (talk) 19:47, 13 April 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.

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

24-hour block issued, and logged. El_C 07:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Meowy (talk · contribs) has been placed on revert parole and other restrictions in accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ruling: [4] which limited him to 1 rv per week. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

However on 2008 Mardakert skirmishes Meowy made an rv [5] of a very dubious merit (removing the word “unrecognized” which was clearly in relation to the self-proclaimed republic and not the flag, so the pretext is baseless and the rv was disruptive) and failed to discuss it on the talk of the relevant article, which he is required to do in accordance to his parole. Previously the same edit was made by banned User:Azad chai (149.68.31.146 (talk · contribs) and other edit warring anons on the same page are Azad chai or his friends). This is not the first violation of parole by Meowy, he was warned and blocked for violations before. [6] Grandmaster (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that flag being recognized argument is pretty weak; otherwise, I could let the no talk page followup go as a forgetful slip-up. El_C 07:40, 11 April 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.

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

Blocked, unblocked, reblocked for a shorter duration by initially unblocking admin, unblocked again by a different admin. It has been more than 24 hours since that, nothing more is about to happen here. GRBerry 15:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

}

I have been referred here from ANI. (Background at ANI two days ago.) Unfortunately, Tango's warning to MONGO has been rejected and ignored. MONGO obviously thinks he's in the right here. We may as well get ArbCom's rememedy tested sooner, rather than waiting til later.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My reading of the diffs you provide is that MONGO is calling a spade a spade. I have touched a few of those articles myself, so consider this an editorial opinion. Admins who jump on good editors who try to protect the encyclopedia should first look at the subject of complaint and see if there is something wrong there. MONGO is complaining about a real problem, not something he has imagined. Thomas Basboll, you are a well known partisan in this dispute, and no doubt you'd like to get MONGO restricted so you can get your way with the article. I am not at all convinced by your complaint. Jehochman ^Talk 12:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Until I receive a formal warning about being a "spade" in this case, I will not dignify the accusation with a denial. One way of reading the ArbCom decision is as an injunction to practice restraint when calling "spade" (as the essay on that topic already notes: "there is still a requirement for editors to be civil to each other, so it is better not to call other editors disruptive or vandals.") In any case, he has been warned, and he has continued.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked MONGO for one week for incivility. He has a history of bad attitude and shows no signs of learning. Telling an admin to "get lost" when they issue an official warning is not acceptable behaviour. I have requested a review of this block on WP:AN/I. --Tango (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

MONGO only said that the article read like is was written by CTers. He didn't call anyone a CTer. He didn't edit war. This is a little too much whining. I personally believe it has too much CT elements as well. --DHeyward (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not what he was blocked for. He was warned for calling someone a troll and blocked for responding to that warning with "get lost". --Tango (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Get lost" isn't trolling. Here's an example of an uncivil response: [7]. Now that's uncivil. Jehochman ^Talk 14:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He's been reblocked for 29 hours, to give a total block time of 31 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly recommend Tango recuse himself from further blocking on Mongo and refer future problems to a single noticeboard for uninvolved review. Durova^Charge! 16:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In what way is he involved? _(1 == 2)^Until 16:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a history of bad blood between Tango and MONGO. Editors deserve to be reasonably confident that blocks are based upon policies, not personalities. There was no need to block immediately in this instance - no threat of violence, no privacy violation. By acting aggressively, Tango has generated drama. That's a net loss to the community. And after today's divisive discussion, it would carry much more preventive value if any future block were carried out soberly, politely, and calmly by one of our 1500 other administrators. Durova^Charge! 17:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad blood? I've made no secret of the fact that I consider much of MONGO's behaviour unacceptable. I'm hardly alone in that - he was desysopped, after all. I wouldn't describe that as bad blood. I didn't not block immeadiately - I issued a warning and then blocked when it was disregarded, all in accordance with the ArbCom ruling. --Tango (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You should have sought consensus before blocking, due to prior involvement. Kelly ^hi! 17:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The efforts to defend MONGO and reverse his block certainly seem to be based upon personalities, not policies. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dan, I am not defending MONGO. I have recused myself from that part of the discussion, simply because it might have an appearance of bias, although it's well known that I particularly avoid 9/11-related articles. What I'm asking here is that Tango observe the same standard. Durova^Charge! 03:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if people are going to keep saying "prior involvement", I want some diffs. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I second the call for diff links which show the complete context for the alleged incivility or disproportionate response to 9/11 edit warring. patsw (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this aspect changes the entire tone of Tango's block.

• If he/she and MONGO have been involved in prior drama then it seems like Tango should've gotten a neutral admin to block MONGO rather than doing so with or without a warning.
• If not, I have to say blocking anyone for voicing an opinion about user conduct which could reasonably be supported is a bad idea. MONGO says Thomas Basboll is trolling, Tango says Thomas Basboll is not, reading this thread it seems like arguments could be made either way. If it were to turn out Thomas Basboll is actually trolling then we'd essentially be punishing MONGO for trying to curb unnecessary disruption which sounds awfully stupid. In the equally likely event Thomas Basboll wasn't trolling, MONGO should be willing to apologize and move on. The block seems excessive. Anynobody 04:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mongo's efforts were heroic

Mongo's efforts in maintaining the standards of the Wikipedia with all things 9/11-related over the years are nothing short of heroic. Getting 9/11 conspiracy theories into the Wikipedia as a means of validating them is on-going and unrelenting. Of course, each external link monetizes a conspiracy theory edit. As an editor of some of those articles I realized that only a admin would be able to stop the articles from being taken over by people with the conspiracy agenda (i.e. "we took down the towers" or "we let them take down the towers") or the moral-equivalence agenda "we deserved 9/11."

The block on Mongo really chills any attempt on the part of editors or admins to engage the agenda warriors so that 9/11 as a conspiracy is prevented from being presented as the primary credible reason for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The other observation that anyone reading about this can make is that persistence pays. If you push and push long enough, the will be some technical issue, Wiki-law, or admin exhaustion that will let you acquire control of an article or a set of articles.

Too many admins were in an ivory tower when Mongo was down in the mud protecting the 9/11 articles from being echoes of conspiracy theory sites. And if anyone wants to repetitively edit that 9/11 was a conspiracy, the "Save Page" is always there for them. I fear the floodgates will open.

I suspect without new and on-going vigilance on the part of other admins, critics of the Wikipedia will find that 9/11 articles will be their one stop shop to see where truly anyone can edit anything. patsw (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time ever that an airplane crash actually collapsed a building and ones that were supposed to be aircraft proof. The article Collapse of the World Trade Center seems to suggest that the jet fuel didn't melt the steel but it caught something else on fire that did it. Also, Rhobite is supposed to be keeping watch on the articles. Same for Morton Devonshire. William Ortiz (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocked

I've unblocked MONGO after consulting the most recent blocking admin. [8] I also tried talking to Tango, [9] but he's gone offline, and I feel that a 16-block is more than long enough. There was substantial concern about the block among editors I respect, expressed on AN/I and the RfAr, including DHeyward, Jehochman, Kelly, Guy, Giano, Bishzilla, Orderinchaos, Raymond Aritt, Durova, Eusebeus, Alex Bakharev, Newyorkbrad, and others. The consequence of the block seems to be that MONGO has left the project, a decision I hope he'll reconsider. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:23, 13 April 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.

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

The talk page subject to the disruption has been semi-protected by an uninvolved administrator, and I have placed a 12-hour disruption block on the IP address. No further action needs taken with regards to the circumstances being discussed. Anthøny 15:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] September 11, 2001 attacks

IP has been argumentative and incivil on the September 11, 2001 attacks, claiming editors have hijacked the article, claiming editors are oppressing content, massive bad faith assumptions and personal attacks and soapboxing, they'll just ignore you or start whining.

These pages are subject to Arbcom remedies and as we've seen in the Mongo case the threshold is significantly lower as a result. There's no reason regular editors in good standing have to put up with this sort of abuse. These pages have been home to these kinds of attacks and innuendo for a long time and we need to start policing it. With "the big stick" remedy we can go forward and use the remedy provided us. Someone please block for an appropriate period of time. Thanks. RxS (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've just semi-protected the talkpage. Routine IP disruption of that kind is probably best deal with by normal means. If he keeps going on other articles, let me know and I'll have a think about other measures. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Practicably speaking that will probably be fine. It'll catch several troublesome IP's in the net as well. Going forward I'm interested in staying as close to the Arbcom ruling as feasible which would call for blocks, but for an IP this works as well for now as long as he doesn't start broadening the articles he's active in. Thanks. RxS (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the anonymous editor has been blocked. Closing this report as resolved; thanks to Rx for raising this point. Anthøny 15:37, 14 April 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.

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

Per case Betacommand 2 remedy 12.3.1.A, in a recent bot request for approval, betacommand has told a user to shut up [10], and generally greeted questions and comments from this user as 'personal attacks'. MickMacNee (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This case has no enforcement provisions, no arbitration enforcement can occur. GRBerry 15:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So what is the purpose of the statement: 'Betacommand is instructed to remain civil'? MickMacNee (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

if your saying that asking a user to shut up, when they are making unfounded assumptions that I am violating policy, and they have no ability to prove the statements, which border on libel, is uncivil, we have a problem. β^_command 15:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand, do you often make off-hand comments about libel? That treads dangerously close to WP:LEGAL. I've seen you wave the libel flag before, and you need to stop. Carcharoth (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

For example, see here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec, great minds and all that):::There is no acceptable situation in which you can tell anyone to shut up because you have decided they are wrong, esecially not weeks after a second arbcom advising you of this fact. It is this precise attitude that is your problem here, not what other users allege you have done. And I am also concerned at how often you accuse others of libel, that's twice I've seen you do it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Beta, there's nothing libelous in the statement you're replying to here. You can't use language like that, man. If you do it again you're going to end up blocked for it--you simply cannot do that. I like you a lot, but consider this a warning under WP:NLT. Please stop. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No where have I stated that I will take legal action nor do I ever plan on taking any action . Libel is defined as Published words or pictures that falsely defame a person making claims that I have violated policy, with zero proof of that. pointing out, and calling a spade a spade while not making legal threats is appropriate. I have never made claims of legal action. Im sorry if users get offended when I call out the unfounded attacks against me. β^_command 15:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That is splitting hairs. Accuse people of libel and they will back off. It has the same chilling effect. Just tell people you think they are wrong, but don't throw around words like defame and libel. Carcharoth (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

that is not splitting hairs, I shouldnt have to be defending myself from claims that have zero proof. users should not be making those statements. I will call a spade a spade. Im sorry if you dont like it, but its not uncivil, or a legal threat. β^_command 16:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

People shouldn't have to put up with you telling them to shut up no matter how justified you think you are, it's as simple as, and you've been told this a ridiculous amount of times. MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If this was an incorrect filing then I suggest the text in 'how to use this page': (Provide) A brief summary of how this behavior is linked to the principles, findings of fact, remedies, and/or enforcement mechanism of the arbitration case needs to be changed. MickMacNee (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Can an arbitration clerk please clarify what that should say? Carcharoth (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

To me it means that, at a minimum, a connection to an enforcement mechanism is required. The whole and/or thing indicates that you can provide the enforcement mechanism link with links to everything else, or by itself. There appears to be no provision for a filing that has no connection to an enforcement mechanism at all. Avruch ^T 15:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a clerk, but I agree. Further, I do NOT agree that saying that something is libel is a "legal threat". Saying "I'm going to take action for your libelous statement" probably would be. But to comment that something may be libelous does not, in itself, violate WP:NLT, to my reading.

My opinion is that - while Betacommand's comment was hardly civil - this board is not the place for it. ARBCOM was pretty clear that they wanted things to cool down with respect to Betacommand for a while, and coming back here with something that's this (relatively) minor seems to betray the spirit of that ruling, in my mind.

If you think Betacommand is being uncivil, fine, issue a civility warning and take action that way - but there's no enforcement provision in the arbcomm case as I read it.

Of course, I'm not an arb, and this is just one guy's opinion. - Philippe 16:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If you were talking to someone face-to-face and you said to them: "get lost", "shut up", and then, after shouting at them (ALL CAPS) you went on to say that "If you cannot provide exact proof [...] I will consider this harassment, unfounded attacks, libel, and an insult." What would your reaction be? It is clear that Betacommand is mis-using the word libel in order to attack people when he gets upset. That violates the spirit of WP:LEGAL. Carcharoth (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I should make it clear that I was not offended. While not optimal, I'm scarcely going to be deeply offended by playground incivility. There's also a not-insignificant chance that I was wrong, and betacommand and I are (I think) agreeing to disagree about our different definitions of a bot. AKAF (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this realy matters, if others think that comment was uncivil (the libel part is an after thought and is not the complaint here), your offense or lack of should not matter. I don't agree with this stance, but from personal experience, this is how wiki is supposed to work. I also strongly oppose this being treated as yet another minor isolated incident, as if the recent case just never happened. If it's not actionable here, I might file a request for an extension of the case instead, unless someone can advise I have got that wrong aswell. MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've posted it to ANI [11] for now MickMacNee (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The remedy in question is not enforceable (and "shut up" is not worthy of a civility block on its own) but I strongly request that Betacommand not throw the word "libel" about like so much confetti. Saying that you might have violated Wikipedia policy is not libellous. Don't be a silly sausage. Moreschi2 (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Moreschi2 above. There's no enforcement provision in the remedy, so there's no situation in which it can be enforced. And while Betacommand is right regarding his technical definition of libel, that isn't the way most of us think when we hear the word, and that should be taken into account as well. God knows with all the heat and hate he gets he could reasonably lose his cool once in a while, and I don't fault him if he does, but we should all be very careful when using words which give the impression of criminal or legal meanings being used. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 17 April 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.

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

Unblock declined, as have several other unblock requests in the deleted usertalk page history. The block may be appealed to ArbCom. MastCell ^Talk 18:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI, one of the socks of either User:Neutral Good/User:BryanFromPalatine, depending on how you follow the pattern of evidence. In either case, per Checkuser evidence this was all confirmed up as likely the same person and direct geographic location as BFP, and through consensus the lot were asked again to leave for the better of Wikipedia. Specific to both Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding. The sock account seems to be asking for an unblock. Lawrence § t/e 15:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

An unblock I see no reason to grant. Commented on the user's talk page. Moreschi2 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 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.

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

blocked for one week for not discussing a reversion on the article talk page per arbitration ruling. Hiding T 17:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Asgardian was restricted from edit warring as a determination of a Dec. 3, 2007 Arbitration decision here. The decision reads in part, "He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page."

Despite this he has incurred two blocks, plus an extension and a sockpuppet use, as documented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae#Log of blocks and bans.

Since then, he has gradually made small reverts over time that he has been warned are in contradiction to WikiProject Comics' editorial guidelines.

He has now more formally violated his one-revert-per-week restriction by two reverts in less than six hours, at Infinity Gauntlet, JLA/Avengers section:

• 13:53 17 April 2008 Asgardian
• 19:15 17 April 2008 Asgardian

As well, he generally does not — and in this April 17 case did not — "discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page". Indeed, he responded to a request to respect editorial guidelines with an attack on the requester, here ("Over-reaction [sic]. Avoid emotive and POV terms such as 'pray'. There are no martyrs here.") This, while refusing, despite two requests over two days, to discuss the content change as required.

I've stayed off Wikipedia for a while largely because of this kind of thing, and Asgardian's reverts began as soon as I returned. Please ... I sincerely request enforcement of the Arb decision.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I won't say much, other than once again I have to express concern at Tenebrae's obsession with me and my movements on Wikipedia. For someone who has just recently returned to Wikipedia, this is a massive overreaction. I quite deliberately avoid contact with this user now as he has a history of trying to play the wronged martyr and using emotive terms. This was the essence of my request to him - that he be logical rather than emotional.

The assumption that there has been a breach is also incorrect, as the opening sentence of the article - the point of contention for the user - was not reverted. In addition to retaining another small grammer change I made another change that the user missed. There was not a blind revert. Tenebrae just needs to pay a tad more attention (another example being the article Masters of Evil, where he blindly reverted much of his own work on the Publication History simply because he didn't like a minor change I made afterwards).

I'm much more of a team player these days, and just proved this by working through another article - Galactus - with another user over a number of sessions. I'm also going to take the issue of what is and isn't fictional to WikiProject Comics for more discussion. Not the acts of someone looking for an edit war.

That said, hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

Asgardian (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Again with the attacks: "obsession", "massive overreaction", "emotional" ... is that really necessary? And Asgardian still has not answered my repeated question of why he will not adhere to editorial guidelines. Logic rather than emotion? His attacks are a smokescreen to avoid answering my repeated question.

Also, he is being disingenuous about the revert. As I say above, what Asgardian calls "the point of contention" is not the opening sentence, but the "JLA/Avengers" section. I ask respectfully that he not try to misdirect again. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The second link you provided doesn't seem to connect to anything, Tenebrae. John Carter (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no attacks, merely observations. You are not objective. No one familiar with your history can claim that. Again, there was no blind revert.

Asgardian (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The Infinity Gauntlet change was disussed after the changes were made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Fictional wordplay, but I do note that discussion occurred after the change itself, and that there hasn't been a really set consensus there as to what to do. And I do note that there is no discussion on the Talk:Infinity Gauntlet page regarding the changes. I also note that "pray" is at least in some circles a standard, if more extreme, way of making a request, and that Asgardian seems to have used it to make a sort of insult against Tenebrae, which is probably not a good thing to do under the circumstances. I've never dealt with AE, so I don't know the ropes here, but it looks like there is some basis for Tenebrae's claim. But, like I said, I'm not familiar with this process so I don't know if it's enough for some sort of sanction. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 18 April 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.

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

IP editor put on a restriction of 1 revert per fortnight and required to engage in discussion on talk page when reverting GRBerry 13:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories, requesting sanctions:

• 67.164.76.73 (talk · contribs), warned 13:35, April 11, 2008
• Continual removal of David Icke from {{911tm}} and Conspiracy Theory from Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center‎, the latest being at 03:23 and 18:21 on 16 April 2008.
• I'm an involved editor, and cannot issue sanctions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The edits to {{911tm}} are repetitive reversion, generally without use of the talk page, over a period of multiple weeks (talk page used once). On their own, they look like a form of 1RR with talk page usage requirements is appropriate. I'll continue investigating as I have time. The same patter is true on the Controlled demolition article; repeated slow reversion without discussion. It seems to be about 5 days between reversions on average, so a week long restriction would be meaningless. Is 1 revert per article per month, talk page usage required a reasonable restriction in everyone else's eyes? Or maybe per fortnight? It should be accompanied by an explanation of consensus and consensus building; this might be a new editor who isn't aware that they should be discussing. GRBerry 19:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC) GRBerry 19:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

God knows my opinion on these matters isn't necessarily a particularly well-informed one, so don't put too much weight on it, but I could see a once a fortnight restriction imposed. But this IP editor would have to be told about the policies and existing restrictions on the content. John Carter (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There actually seems to be quite a bit of discussion about the Icke inclusion on the discussion page (and similarly large amount of discussion on the demolition page on the issue of the phrase conspiracy theory). Icke is inherently offensive to average 9/11 activists -- if you read the websites you will find this to be true -- so it's clear why most people would not want him on a template. The only people who think he should be included are those who want to discredit the template as is shown in their many reverts of 9/11 info they disagree with, Weregerbil and Arthur Rubin. That's like having pro-Israel editors in charge of a template on Palestine. Makes about as much sense, or at least, is transparent. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Understood, and I've reminded Arthur that he was right last month when he noted that the bit in Icke's article needs better sourcing. Hopefully that will get done soon. But this editor also has been engaging in reversion without discussion on another 9/11 article. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. So the problematic behavior is not merely an Icke issue. GRBerry 13:31, 21 April 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.

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

Revert restriction extended, no current block. See more details at bottom. GRBerry 18:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User Osli73 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Osli73 has a history of willfully violating probations including the use of sockpuppets on articles related to the former Yugoslavia.

One can see at the bottom of this arbitration webpage that he has been blocked repeatedly for willfully violating sanctions placed against his edit warring and sockpuppetry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Involved_parties

For example:

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) 3 months per 1 month tthis AE post. Please note this is Osli's fourth block. --wL<speak·check> 07:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for 2 weeks for breaking the revert limit on Srebrenica massacre; also banned from editing Srebrenica massacre for 3 months. Thatcher131 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for two weeks for directly violating his probation and revert parole at Srebrenica massacre. --Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for one week for directly violating his probation and revert parole by using a sockpuppet to edit war at Srebrenica massacre. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked KarlXII (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Osli73 (talk · contribs) proven by checkuser. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On March 19, 2008, Osli73 received the following probation from administrator Thatcher explicitly forbidding Osli73 from more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Mujahadin , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen

Your topic ban is lifted and replaced with a revert parole. You may edit Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen but for one month (from 17 March) you are limited to one revert per article per week. Obvious vandalism is excepted from the revert limit, but you should take care in distinguishing true vandalism from content disputes. You are permitted to revert the edits of banned users such as Grandy Grandy/The Dragon of Bosnia but you should be extremely careful in doing so, because if it turns out the editor you are reverting is not a sockpuppet of the banned user you will have violated the revert limit. It would be better to report suspected sockpuppets to WP:AE or WP:RFCU. Thatcher 14:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

see user Osli73 talk page for the above probation notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Osli73

Despite the explicit probation against more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles, user Osli73 has again engaged in edit warring, reverting the Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen articles repeatedly, for example Osli made the following 8 reverts to the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles from April 8 to April 14:

diffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205563168

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205562519

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205439461

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205437228

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205144618

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204899529

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204888935

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204184557

From his statements, Osli73 has shown that he fully understands the restrictions placed upon him. From his actions, he has shown that he is not willing to abide by those restrictions.

I am notifying the administrators that have sanctioned Osli73 in the past as well as notifying Osli73 of this posting. Especially with articles involving the former Yugoslavia, it is imperative that users respect the limits placed upon their editing. If the more vitriolic editors involved in former Yugoslavia articles see that Osli73 is not held accountable for his his transgressions, then there is greater likelihood of out-of-control edit warring as there has been in the past. Fairview360 (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Copied from WP:ANI#Osli73 violating parole, repeat violator to the proper forum. GRBerry 13:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The limitation imposed is one revert per article per week, not one per week. That clarified, there are two articles reported here and at least three reverts inside a week on each article, so the ban has clearly been violated. When we lowered the topic ban to a revert limit, we didn't specify sanctions upon violation. I'm thinking a short block followed by an extension of the revert limit. We should also check the article histories to see if other editors of those articles have engaged in conduct that needs to be addressed. GRBerry 13:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

On 18 December 2006, Srikeit (talk · contribs) blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week because of sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole in Srebrenica massacre.

I think Osli created another account Jonathanmills (talk · contribs) in order to edit Srebrenica massacre:

Srebrenica massacre

• Jonathanmills made some edits
• Osli reverts to Jonathanmills

• Osli restores some links
• Jonathanmills restores the same links

If you search through his edits you will realise that both of them edited Konjic article (?!) It is impossible that they are both interested in Konjic village in Herzegovina ?! Osli allegedly from Sweden, and Jonathanmills from England, both interested in a village in a country that most people never heard of ?!

Konjic

• Osli73 edited a section
• Johnatanmills edited the same section.

Due to the fact that it has already been proven Osli was a sockpuppeteer in Srebrenica massacre article, this is a good reason to ask for another check user. They even have the same greetings, it is enough to look at the talk pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.39.121 (talk)

The IP address used for this query was 85.158.39.121 amd whois returns: "85.158.38.0 - 85.158.39.255 descr: Logosoft wireless internet access" which is from one of the IP addresses ranges involved in a recent edit war with user:Osli73 (see my comment below the next one) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am quite concerned about Osli73's edits. This level of edit warring should not be continuing. As I recently blocked him for edit warring I am not going to block him again but would recommend close watch on it. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Block log for Osli73

Much (all?) of his edit warring has been against edits made by sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy. For example a glance of at history of Bosnian mujahideen show that the revert he made of HarisM was because HarisM reverted Osli73 revert of AhmadinV (a probable sockpuppet of Grandy Grand) revert. HarisM has also reverted to versions by sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy on other pages Bosnian war, Mujahideen, Role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war. HarisM has stated that he/she is neither a sockpuppet of user:Grandy Grandy or that user:Grandy Grandy is a sockpuppet of his/hers. I have suggested on the talk pages of Bosnian mujahideen and Role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian War that instead of reverting to a version by sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy --because it involves a large changes from the version by user:Osli73 it is hard to read the diffs and difficult to decide on which is better -- that user:HarisM introduces the changes by section and reaches a consensus for each change on the talk pages before moving on to the next change.

Mixed up in this are repeated reverts to versions of the text by sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy by dynamic IP addresses such as 85.158.35.27 (85.158.36.0 - 85.158.37.255 Bosnia And Herzegovina Sarajevo Logosoft Cable Internet Access (mnt-by: LOGOSOFT-MNT)) 85.158.36.123 (Bosnia And Herzegovina Sarajevo Logosoft Cable Internet Access (mnt-by: LOGOSOFT-MNT)), 85.158.38.208 (85.158.38.0 - 85.158.39.255 Bosnia And Herzegovina Sarajevo Logosoft Wireless Internet Access) 217.75.202.13 (217.75.202.12 - 217.75.202.15 Bosnia And Herzegovina Autoline_salon (mnt-by: LOGOSOFT-MNT)). The locations of the IP addresses were provided via http://whois.domaintools.com.

So in summary, given the residue of the edit war with sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy, I think that in this case blocking user:Osli73 for a week would be sufficient reminder that he should not engage in this behaviour (the block has ended). Further I think that after user:Osli73 has his time in the sin bin, if HarisM still wants to introduce the versions written by sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy he/she should introduce them incrementally having discussed them on the talk page and gained a consensus to do so. On pages where new users or IP addresses revert to versions or partial versions of the page authored by sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy those edits should be reverted and the pages protected for a month from edits by IP and new users. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer ought to more thoroughly research Osli73's edit warring history before making such definitive statements. In fact, Osli73 has engaged in edit wars with several different users. Furthermore, it would seem appropriate for Philip Baird Shearer to recuse himself in the role of administrator on articles that Osli73 is editting since Philip Baird Shearer himself has engaged in edit wars with Osli73 as his ally. Fairview360 (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fairview360 You wrote Despite the explicit probation against more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles, user Osli73 has again engaged in edit warring, reverting the Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen articles repeatedly, for example Osli made the following 8 reverts to the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles from April 8 to April 14:, therefore I have only been looking at Osli73 behaviour since the ban was put in place on March 19 (see User talk:Osli73#Article ban). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer posted Osli73's block log which runs from September 2006 to April 16 and made the statement "Much (all?) of his edit warring has been against edits made by sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy."

That is rather misleading.

Any reader would assume that Philip Baird Shearer was refering to much or all of the blocks shown in Osli's block log that Philip Baird Sheare himself posted. With the comments above, Philip Baird Shearer gave the impression that most or all of Osli73's transgressions have been in reaction to other editors' transgressions which is not the case. The topic of this discussion is not simply Osli73's recent transgression but the fact that he has repeatedly ignored/circumvented sanctions placed upon him. Fairview360 (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I put the link there as a convenience link for those like me who had read the comment by Stifle and like me wanted to see the block log. If I had intended my next comment to be a continuation of the block log link, then I would have placed "Most (all?) of his edit warring..." next to the link on the same line. Instead I placed it on the next line. If that juxtaposition confused you Fairview360 then I am sorry for the confusion that it caused you and anyone else who was also confused by the juxtaposition. But, so that it is clear to you I will repeat what I wrote above, as you seemed to have missed it. Fairview360 You wrote Despite the explicit probation against more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles, user Osli73 has again engaged in edit warring, reverting the Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen articles repeatedly, for example Osli made the following 8 reverts to the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles from April 8 to April 14:, therefore I have only been looking at Osli73 behaviour since the ban was put in place on March 19 (see User talk:Osli73#Article ban). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So, according to Philip Baird Shearer, if he had put his comment on the same line as the block log, then he would have indeed been refering to the entire block log when he claimed that Osli73's edit warring has only been in response to others' sockpuppetry, but because he put his comment on the line below the block log, we are all supposed to understand that he of course was defending only Osli73's recent edit warring. For those of us who did not understand this distinction, he apologizes. O.K. Said apology and clarification are duly noted for future reference. Fairview360 (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"So, according to Philip Baird Shearer" are you implying that I do not know what I was doing or that I acted in bad faith? You say "defending" however I do not consider this to be star chamber, but rather a consensus building exercise. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Before Philip Baird Shearer proceeds any further in this discussion, he ought to clarify if he is purporting to be in the role of administrator here or rather simply expressing his opinion as an editor.

Wiki policy is quite clear concerning when an administrator should not use his administrative tools, ie. not act as an administrator.

Philip Baird Shearer is very much an involved editor here. He has not only edited the articles affected by Osli73's behavior, Philip Baird Shearer has engaged in multiple reverts often in concert with Osli73. Of course, Philip Baird Shearer is entirely free to act as an editor and passionately defend his point of view as others do the same. But if he wants to play on one soccer team against another and at the same time keep a whistle in his mouth as a referee of that very same game, there is obviously a confliict of interest.

Other administrators, who have edited Bosnia-related articles -- actually less than Philip Baird Shearer -- have expressly refrained from using any of their administrative tools, refrained from acting as an administrator, and instead, when aware of an issue worthy of administrative review, referred their concerns to other administrators who are not involved editors.

Wiki policy found on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators is as clear as need be: "Administrators should not use their tools where they are a party (or significant editor).

A review of Philip Baird Shearer's edits of the Bosnian Genocide, Srebrenica Massacre, and Bosnian Mujahideen articles will show that he is indeed very much an involved editor. He has contributed content and reverted multiple times. On the Bosnian Genocide article, among scores of reverts in the midst of edit warring, he has specifically reverted back to the last version by Osli73 many times.

And yet, with both the Bosnian Mujahideen and Bosnian Genocide article, he has used his administrative powers to protect the articles and thereby lock in the version that he himself has been creating and defending as an editor.

It is not a question of content. Many of Philip Baird Shearer's contributions are quite thoughtful even when taking a position that is strongly opposed by other editors. However, it does appear that Philip Baird Shearer is in clear violation of wiki policy which prohibits involved editors acting simultaneously as administrators. No matter how intent Philip Baird Shearer may be towards objectivity, his personal involvement with the content and the editors in question disqualify him as a disinterested third party as mediators are meant to be. There is a reason why wiki has the policies it has.

So the question returns to Philip Baird Shearer, is he writing here as an editor or an administrator? Fairview360 (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to make allegations then at least check you facts. Yes I have recently protected Bosnian mujahideen article because of editwarring, and yes it happens that the last person to edit it was Osli73, but you are wrong about the Bosnian Genocide article. When I protected that article for the same reason, the version I protected was one by user:Grandy Grandy "Protected Bosnian Genocide: edit warring [edit=sysop:move=sysop (expires 00:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)]". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip is not telling the truth. Philip said:"Block log for Osli73 - Much (all?) of his edit warring has been against edits made by sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy."

According to Grandy's contribution, Grandy created his account on 27 September 2007, and Osli has been blocked before that seven times. According to Philip's contribution, Osli and Philip worked together on Bosnian related articles with almost the same opinion. I think Osli should be blocked at least for two months, and of course banned infinitely if the evidence shows he is a sockpuppeteer. 217.75.202.131 (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

217.75.202.131 (217.75.202.128 - 217.75.202.159 (Elektroprivreda Bosne i Hercegovine (mnt-by: LOGOSOFT-MNT)) Are you the same editor who used logsoft IP addresses to edit war with Osli73? If the Philip comment above refers to me see my answer to Fairview360. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip, you don't get it. I dont care whose version it is, if it is using valid sources, and speaking the truth I allready stated that, i don't care about Grandy Grandy or Osli, for me they are the same, they both played dirty games with sockpuppets. You are trying to imply that my opinion is wrong if I support version of Grandy, which is silly. You accused me indirectly of being a sockpuppet or having sockpuppets. I find it offensive, because some other users accused me too, and apologized after a while. I again ask, anyone with Check User rights to do the checking to examine my contribution, or whatever it takes, and finally to stop accusing me. I explained why I support articles with ICTY sources and such. I agree that we all together should agree valid article, with valid sources, that are neutral. And what is it more neutral that source/version I propose. I also showed you on Bosnian War talk page that Osli removes paragraphs with source without explanation hiding with some irrelevant comments not related to removal, Osli never answered my question why he did that. I realised what Osli is trying to do in Bosnian War, and I reviewed his contribution. I saw he did the same thing in all articles about Bosnian War. That's why I was very angry. Noone wants to stop that behaviour. --HarisM (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not accused you of anything I asked you if Grandy Grandy was a sockpuppet of yours. As you have answered no then the matter is closed. As I have suggested on the appropriate talk pages if you wish to introduce text written by Grandy Grandy then do it incrementally so that each change can be judged on its merit. It is debatable, given the cat fight between Osli73 and Grandy Grandy, who is removing old text and adding new as there are large diffs between the versions. An easy way to "cut this gordian knot"/"remove this mares nest" is to make incremental changes discussing each one on the talk page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To whomever is deciding on this matter, I would like to make a couple of statements:

1. I'm very sorry for breaking my revert parole. Honestly, I had forgotten about it. I know it is not a valid excuse, but that is the reason. Regardless, I acknowledge that I have broken it and accept any remedies imposed on me by the editor(s) in charge of deciding this matter. However, in deciding the proper remedy, I would like to ask you to please consider the following:
2. The revert parole violation on the Alija Izetbegovic article was the result of continuous reverts by an anon user unwilling to engage in discussion and reverting to a version which I think is safe to say is definately WP:POV.
3. I believe that I have continuously tried to engage in and promote discussion on articles I have been involved in where there have been edit disputes. For example, please see my edit histories on the Bosnian mujahideen article where I initiated a lengthy mediation process to thwart continuous deletion and vandalism of the article. Same goes for the Bosnian war article. I have also tried to informally mediate in other articles where there have been edit disputes, recently the University of Prishtina article.
4. Please recognize that generally it is very difficult to edit articles and manage editing conflicts in Balkan related articles due to the very ideological motives of some of the editors involved. This includes quite a few personal attacks against myself and an overall rather unfriendly editing environment. With this in mind, please note that none of the sanctions against me have been for personal attacks or unfriendly comments. I believe they have all been WP:3RR related (which, I know, isn't good, but still...).
5. The sockpuppet violation was related to personal attacks I received on my personal email after engaging in the Srebrenica massacre article. Apparently some people had investigated and found some very personal information about myself. I simply feared that the personal attacks on Wikipedia could develop into personal attacks off Wikipedia as well. I realize it was wrong, but at the time I judged (wrongly) that it was a way to end the personal attacks.
6. I have nothing to do with User:Jonathanmills.
7. Finally, I believe that I am sincerely trying to push for a WP:NPOV on articles which are under a lot of pressure from ideologically motivated editors. Unfortunately, this has landed me in some trouble a couple of times. The 3RR violations are an example where I have felt (again, wrongly) a need to stem a tide of reverts from various editors (who have in at least one case turned out to be one and the same) and anonymous IPs. However, I acknowledge that this is wrong.

Before making a decision I would like to ask the responsible admin to please consider the above. Best regardsOsli73 (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The claim by Osli73 that his use of a sockpuppet was a form of self-defense is not credible given that he used the sockpuppet to circumvent restrictions placed upon him. Most damning of all is that he used both his own user Osli73 and his sockpuppet KarlXII at the same time as a tag team against other users. Additionally, his portrayal of himself as a neutral editor is a bit of a stretch given that there is a clear pattern in his edits of trying to obscure or completely deny Serbia's role in the Srebrenica massacre at times using "Free Slobodan Milosevic" websites as his references. He at times does indeed make thoughtful improvements to articles but he is by no means a neutral observer with only enclopedic interests at heart. In any case, he has shown a consistent disregard for restrictions placed upon him apparently since he usually receives only a brief block or ban -- a slap on the wrist -- and therefore, there appears to be a net gain to his disregarding the restrictions. It is not clear what it would require to get him to abide by the restrictions placed upon him. Fairview360 (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fview360, a quick response to the above.

• I am sorry you don't believe the explanation for the sockpuppetry. That was over a year ago. Here's a recent comment from someone who likes to me to know they've investigated me.[25]
• I'm not trying to obscure Serbia's involvement in the Srebrenica massacre (though I believe you are trying to overstate it). I have never used "Free Slobodan Milosevic" websites as references. I may, however, have used them as examples of dissenting Serbian opinions. Please understand that providing an example of certain people's opinions does not equate to having that opinion oneself. I have already explained that to you several times.

Osli73 (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Osli73 apart from KarlXII have you used any other sockpuppets? Are you a sockpuppet of another account? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk)

No.Osli73 (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This inquiry is not of much value given that the last time Osli73 was using a sockpuppet and was asked if he was doing so, this was his response using his KarlXII sockpuppet: "I know that you levelled the sockpuppet ackusation before and I ignored it but did forward it to osli." (text from KarlXII 08:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC) contribution to the Srebrenica Massacre discussion page.) Not exactly a staightforward honest answer. Fairview360 (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fairview360, I have explained the circumstances of that violation. I was also duly punished for it. Over a year and a half has passed since then. There

Fairview360 initially you raised his current editing behaviour because "I am notifying the administrators that have sanctioned Osli73 in the past as well as notifying Osli73 of this posting. Especially with articles involving the former Yugoslavia, it is imperative that users respect the limits placed upon their editing. If the more vitriolic editors involved in former Yugoslavia articles see that Osli73 is not held accountable for his his transgressions, then there is greater likelihood of out-of-control edit warring as there has been in the past." What do you think is an appropriate sanction on Osli73 to deter "more vitriolic editors involved in former Yugoslavia articles"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

My response to User:Fairview360's comments above: Fairview360 refers to "vitriolic" editors on Yugoslavia related articles. As far as I am concerned he belongs to this group himself (although he is by no means the worst). Please see some examples of his comments on Talk:Srebrenica massacre below. Most revolving around accusations of my being a genocide denier, Milosevic supporter, supporter of the Greater Serbia project, etc.. Very much in line with his comments above. Please take the time to read them to better understand the background:

• "Given your apparent bi-polar approach to editing, for the sake of keeping things straight, I am going to give you two names: Osli the Revisionist and Osli the Reasonable. Unfortunately, the second parts both start with R so it will be Osli-Rev and Osli-Reas. Right now, you are Osli-Reas, not to be confused with Reis." [26]
• "Given that I genuinely believe that you aid and abet the propaganda of those who committed genocide, I am remarkably civil with you."[27]
• "Osli claims that he is not trying to deny anything, yet, now he insists on including a document straight from slobodan-milosevic.org that flatout denies that any massacre took place and then insists on calling it simply an alternative point of view. Why on earth would anyone want to engage in mediation with someone as underhanded as Osli. He claims that he is a 33 year old father of two from Sweden but show almost no interest in Sweden and has quite a bit of time to dicker with this article rather than spend his time earning money for his alleged family. He uses ultra-nationalist tactics of trying to take all the benefits of playing fair - mediation - but shows time and again that if ever it benefits him, he will engage in underhanded tactics like making major changes but trying to hide it as minor or putting pure propaganda - Srebrenica did not happen - and try to present it as a legitimate alternative point of view. And then of course he tries to re-invent himself time and again and does indeed make valid points. But for how long must this article endure Osli?"[28]
• "it is clear to me that Osli wants to create controversy or delete items or in one way or another distract from the basic facts of what happened in Srebrenica. I believe that by reasoning with him, I can expose the fact that many of his deletions are unjustified and are in fact meant to destroy the veracity of the article... I know that some of my time is wasted dealing with Osli who I hardly believe is a Swede and who I do not accept as genuinely concerned about anything other than promoting "Defend Milosevic! Defend Serbia" slants, but from time to time, I learn more while researching his specious claims which adds to my knowledge of the Srebrenica massacre and current ultra-nationalist tactics for covering up or distracting from what happened; and perhaps most relevant of all"[29]
• "I want to thank Osli for inspiring this additional research and given his professed commitment to a rational approach to writing this article, I rest assured that he too will agree to the "approximately 8,000 killed" in the introduction once all the documentation has been presented. Hmmmm... well on second thought he'll probably go running to Seselj to get the latest "controversy" and do everything he can to sabotage putting a reasonable estimate based on ICMP research in the introduction, but so it goes."[30]
• "If anything, I assume you are a nationalist sympathetic to the Greater Serbia Project. It takes more than just being a Serb to be what I believe you are."[31]
• "my view of what happened is substantiated by the ICTY and the ICMP and the Federal Commission for Missing Persons. Your view is supported by slobodan-milosevic.org. What does that tell you? Compromising with one user named Osli is not going to be the basis of this article."[32]
• "I am of the mind that your true objective here is to plant seeds of doubt and revise numbers down and get MacKenzie-esque revisionism back in the article."[33]

Fairview360 was by far not the most "vitriolic" editor, but, as the above comments he made on Talk:Srebrenica massacre show, he did not shy away from personal attacks and bullying. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The salient issue here is that every wiki editor is obligated to abide by the restrictions placed upon him. The fact is that Osli73 has repeatedly violated the restrictions placed upon him. The question for administrators is what course of action will lead to Osli73 abiding by the sanctions placed upon him. Fairview360 (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, if I could add my two cents here... :-)

I can assure people I'm not a sockpuppet (I'm sure that's what they all say, of course :-)

Isn't there some way it can be investigated and resolved, though? As I've said a number of times, if you checked ISPs you'd find that Osli and I are in different countries.

I've said myself that the fact we both use the term 'Cheers' is hardly going to allay suspicions, but he explained to me that he'd been in England for several years, and I have lived in New Zealand, where it is a common phrase (look it up if you're suspicious ;-)

As for that town in Bosnia, that was to do with a Bosnian/Bosniak? detention facility, not just some random small town. Both of our edits were on that subject. Jonathanmills (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to add 'Cheers' ;-)

But I was going to say, in defence of Osli, as far as his story goes, is that he made one alternate identity after some particularly nasty attacks on him (like I say, I haven't looked these up, but it's what he's told me); all I can say about this is that it doesn't surprise me, having been involved on some of the same pages.. and while I of course realise that war is an extremely sensitive subject, war crimes even more so (and I speak from total first-hand ignorance, lucky me..), I don't think some of the fairly aggressive tone of certain editors *towards* Osli can be condoned. Cheers! Jonathanmills (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

While there will always be lingering concerns about Osli73 using sockpuppets given his past behavior, Jonathanmills has a very different style from Osli73. The user persisting with the rumors that Jonathanmills is a sockpuppet does so under an anonymous IP. In fact, at this time, apparently, there are not any named users claiming that Jonathanmills is a sockpuppet. Furthermore, the anonymous IP's claims have been refuted by at least some editors: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFairview360&diff=206153905&oldid=206094504 , but this discussion is losing focus...

On March 19, 2008, Osli73 received the following probation from administrator Thatcher explicitly forbidding Osli73 from more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Mujahadin , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen

Your topic ban is lifted and replaced with a revert parole. You may edit Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen but for one month (from 17 March) you are limited to one revert per article per week. Obvious vandalism is excepted from the revert limit, but you should take care in distinguishing true vandalism from content disputes. You are permitted to revert the edits of banned users such as Grandy Grandy/The Dragon of Bosnia but you should be extremely careful in doing so, because if it turns out the editor you are reverting is not a sockpuppet of the banned user you will have violated the revert limit. It would be better to report suspected sockpuppets to WP:AE or WP:RFCU. Thatcher 14:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

see user Osli73 talk page for the above probation notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Osli73

Osli73 violated his probation several times. It is up to the appropriate administrators to decide the response to these violations. Fairview360 (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Many words above, little information. Sigh. Reviewing again, I find that the revert limit was not clearly violated on Bosnian Mujahideen; two of the four diffs reported are definitely reversions of a sockpuppet of The Dragon of Bosnia/Grandy Grandy and thus definitely authorized, and one more is likely a reversion of that editor when using an IP account. On Mujahideen, one of the four is reverting that same IP, leaving 3 reverts, for a violation of the special restriction. Osli73 was already blocked 24 hours for Alija Izetbegović, without the special restriction having been noticed by the blocking admin. The sockpuppetry claim with regard to Jonathanmills does not appear credible, much less correct. This report has also grown untimely, in part due to untimely filing and in part due to a long decision process here. Taking into account my views above, my memory of the report that led to the special restriction, Stifle's views above, and to a lesser extent Phillip B. S.'s views above, I conclude that the best thing to do at this time is to extend the special restriction another two weeks with no current block. GRBerry 18:45, 21 April 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.

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

question answered, not arbitration enforcement anyway GRBerry 18:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

At WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive16#Community ban, Vintagekits is listed as one of two users that are banned per behaviour during the "Troubles" arbitration. However, he claims that he is "only" indefinitely blocked and not permanently banned. It appears that he thinks he is eligible to request that the block is lifted one day, and that in the meantime, the methods described at WP:Banning policy#Evasion and enforcement are inappropriate for him. I note that the decision for his most recent indefinite block (!) is described at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive372#User:Vintagekits, and does not actually formally state that he is under community ban. Conversely, I also note that many user comments on WP:AN and WP:ANI since then (e.g. wrt the edit-warring on his user page) imply that those users think he is indeed banned, so it is clear that there is some confusion here. I seek final clarification of his status, with a "formal" notification to Vintagekits stating what it is. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a process heavy place, or I'd have booted this for being in the wrong forum. We think more of the substance of the matter than checking boxes on a form. It is quite clear that the ANI thread in archive 372 that you link to above led to a community consensus that this editor should be blocked with no end date in sight. That is a community ban, and will remain one until such time as an administrator decides that they should be unblocked. I'd call them community banned based on the ANI thread. (The WP:AE thread doesn't evidence that, and we don't do community bans here anyway.) GRBerry 17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I also just saw that Vintagekits was added to WP:List of banned users somewhat after the fact [34], but that's good enough for me. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:57, 21 April 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.

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

forum shopping, dupe thread

Regarding the Thomas Basboll block by Raul654, Raul is:

1. not an uninvolved editor Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Clarifications_and motions#Raul654_is_NOT_an_.22uninvolved.22_administrator
2. did not follow the guidelines before blocking Thomas Basboll. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Clarifications_and_motions#Raul654.27s did_not_follow_the_arbcom_guidelines

Can someone lift the "September 11 attacks-related articles" ban on Thomas Basboll? This case cannot be anymore clear cut. Inclusionist (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This matter was appealed at WP:RFAC. Creating a duplicate thread here, when no enforcement action is even possible, is disruptive. Jehochman ^Talk 06:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman. No forum shopping, please. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:49, 23 April 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.

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

• [35] That link is to an edit by Giano on FT2s talkpage that appears to violate his civility restriction. I'm sure everyone has had enough of dealing this particular subject for awhile, and yet... Rather than havign a random admin point this out on IRC, and have the whole thing devolve from there, can we have a discussion about this edit and its edit summary (rantings of a disruptive troll) on this page before anyone takes action? Avruch ^T 16:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I noticed that too, but not until a few minutes ago. It was done while I was writing the point made in my next sentence. I've made the point here that I fear that FT2's lengthy analysis and posts, done outside the remit of an arbitration case, have been a constant annoyance to Giano. Consequently, I've asked FT2 to step away from this, to allow Giano to calm down:

    "Fair enough. I think we've both made our points. The best way to de-escalate things might now be if we all step away. Repeating things won't help at this stage, and from what I can see, your continuing comments are not helping (and mine probably aren't either). If you really want Giano to calm down, please consider reducing or archiving or summarising the material currently on your talk page. To be clear, I'm going to make a conscious effort to step away, and I hope you and Giano do as well."

    Before anyone objects that this will allow anyone to get upset and ask an arbitrator to stop such analysis, I would like to point out that Flonight (also an arbitrator) said this:

    "I would like to remind both of you that when you speak of Giano that you are talking about a real person. I feel uncomfortable with the manner that you both are analyzing him. Debating about him outside of our normal dispute resolution process is not helpful to the situation, I think."

    Do we really want an arbitration case about whether arbitrators can analyse at length outside of arbitration cases? And even if FT2 was wearing his administrator's hat, I think the point still stands - he is trying to exert his authority as an arbitrator and, frankly, is (unintentionally) inflaming the situation. I will repeat here my call for everyone to just step back and calm down. Carcharoth (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Update: FT2 has responded to my request here. I also posted to Giano's talk page here. I really am stepping away from this now. I've done as much as I can, I think. Carcharoth (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I too am very concerned about FT2's behaviour here. If we were to see nearly 200Kb of analysis about another editor, on any random user talk page here, we'd be castigating the person who wrote it, not the person whose personality was being analysed in minute detail. That it is being written by an arbitrator, an administrator, and a person who (more and more clearly) is in dispute with Giano just makes it that much more unacceptable. This has to stop. From WP:NPA:

    Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all...The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.

    Emphasis mine. Risker (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Giano made a couple similar edits yesterday. I do think that edit summaries such as "removing rantings of a disruptive troll" [36] and "removing more lies" [37] can reasonably be viewed as assuming bad faith. These comments about Until1==2 can also reasonably be viewed as assuming bad faith independent of FT2's comments: [38] [39]. In particular, the first of these two, on WT:ANI, has no context in the discussion, and appears to be intended as personal criticism. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: The committee is currently voting on a proposal that would restrict who may enforce the sanctions in this case. Any administrator even considering acting on this should read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions#Request for clarification : Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC before acting to see if their authority to act has been restricted. GRBerry 17:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Better link here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• FT2's overanalysis of Giano is getting extremely disruptive. Editors have been unnerved by FT2's long posts about Giano for almost a week now, yet he is still doing it. If you're insistent on blocking Giano, at the very least ask FT2 to stop baiting him. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think long posts associated with Giano are de riguer these days - that he is currently choosing to be upset by FT2s is neither here nor there. FT2, whatever you think of his analysis, is not under a case remedy mandating civility. Giano is. It is instructive that the views on FT2s posts line up roughly with the sides of the general dispute, so I think criticism of his 'psychoanalysis' as its been called should be taken with a grain of salt. At any rate, the question here is this: Is that edit, and the others pointed out by CBM, uncivil and a violation of the case remedy? Note that the motion to restrict who can act on this remedy has not passed, and last I checked didn't have wide support by the Committee. Avruch ^T 17:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And it's instructive to read your view of the power relations between an arbitrator and an ordinary editor: "FT2 ... is not under a case remedy mandating civility. Giano is." Wow. As for your suggestion above, Carcharoth, that FT2 is inflaming the situation "unintentionally"... you don't see it as starting to stretch belief at all, that FT2 treats a request for less psychobabble as a request for more psychobabble? Hallo? Am I still inaudible ? Is the arbitrator emperor wearing any clothes today? Bishonen | talk 18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC).

FT2's edits are a matter for some other forum to discuss. The only relevant question here is whether Giano's edits (see my post above) can reasonably considered incivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The question of provocation is also relevant. Bishonen | talk 18:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC).

Actually, FT2's edits are an essential component of determining the above. Context is necessary. Risker (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Consider that two of the diffs I posted above were unrelated to FT2 and that in one of them Giano appears to have joined a thread "unprovoked" simply to give a personal criticism of Until1==2. But, per the section "Are you sure this is the page you are looking for?" above, the only questions pertinent here are whether Giano has breached his arbcom sanction, not his motivation for doing so.

So here is a direct question: is anyone arguing that Giano's edits, linked in my post above, cannot reasonably be considered incivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith? — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are claiming that editor A is assuming bad faith about editor B, the evidence regarding B's actions is required for two reasons. First context, as Risker points about above. Second, because if B's actions show evidence tending to indicate that A is correct then it is wrong to say that A is assuming. In this matter there is also history, during the IRC arbcomm Tony Sidaway admitted that he had been trolling on IRC with the specific intent to get Giano driven away from the project. I honestly can't see Giano assuming anything that is not supported by evidence in the diffs. He may or may not be right, but there is enough evidence in support of his position to conclude that he is not assuming. GRBerry 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The claim is not that Giano is assuming bad faith, only that a reasonable admin could conclude from his edits that he is. In particular, I think a reasonable admin could conclude that "removing the rantings of a disruptive troll" [40] is both incivil, a personal attack, and an assumption of bad faith, as is Giano's assertion that if disruption didn't come from ANI, Until1==2 would "stir" it on IRC [41]. In this situation, I don't think anyone can assert in good faith that FT2, an arbitrator, is trying to drive Giano from the project; and the thread where Giano attack Until1==2 didn't have any mention of Giano at all before he posted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Of all the diffs cited above, this is most clearly out of bounds. The issue of FT2's talk page is complex. FT2 thinks he is helping by trying to analyze the situation and give advice. Many others do not see it that way. However, FT2 is a big boy, and if an arbitrator can not stand being called a troll once in a while he probably shouldn't have run. However, calling out another editor in an unrelated discussion is clearly out of bounds, whether one has a past history with that editor or not. Giano's comment here is a blockable violation.

I also do not give any weight to the pending vote on a special enforcement commission. Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution and enforcement requests are not occasions to re-argue the merits of the case or the remedy. enforcement is a routine matter that may be handled by any admin, although it certainly is required that the admin be familiar with the particulars of the case and remedies, and exercise good judgement in applying sanctions. Until and unless the special enforcement commission passes, the IRC case is just another routine case. Put another way, the committee's ongoing deliberations do not immunize Giano (or any other editor named in a pending amendment) from enforcement action while the matter is pending.

The only matter I am considering at this point is whether to block Giano now that the edit is almost 48 hours old, and was not the original subject of the complaint. Thatcher 20:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Thatcher. With respect to the edit in question, it was already addressed by User:EVula, who elected to warn rather than to block. (Discussion from Giano's talk page here.) The situation was not unaddressed; an administrator in good standing addressed it and appears to have considered it resolved. Risker (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that "staleness" on the order of two days is a determining factor on its own in this case, because the Giano's edits today can be viewed as part of a continuing multi-day incident. The arbcom sanction was justified by a very long-term pattern of edits each of which, on its own, barely pushes the edge. If it appeared that the edits from April 21 had been the end of the matter, it would be certainly be better to ignore them and move on, but it doesn't appear that that is the case here. It's also relevant that Giano's previous block was for personal comments regarding Until1==2; it does not seem to have been successful at ending them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have a lot of respect for EVula, a very experienced and respected administrator who has dealt with many complex situations in the past. I have the same respect for Thatcher, who has demonstrated by his extensive work here at WP:AE that he can ably manage complex issues. It's been my observation that administrators of this calibre normally respect the decisions of each other and will not overrule unless there are very extenuating circumstances. Risker (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Reading through the diff of Evula and Giano's conversation doesn't give me the impression that Giano actually retracted the attack or agreed to desist. Evula's final comment in that thread is especially lacking in optimism. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

True, but other than the FT2 business, he has not repeated his comments. Thatcher 22:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

<grin>You're saying Giano hasn't made any other edits violating the sanction, except those other edits he made that violate it?</grin> You may be right that we should just hope Giano will let the matter rest, although that's the strategy that led us to this point. I don't agree that comments involving FT2 are somehow immune from the arbcom sanction, since the question whether the recipient is a big boy (or girl) who can handle the comments isn't part of the criteria for blocking. But I can consider this complaint resolved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's true that long posts may be hard for some to handle. But these posts contain nothing more than the usual descriptions and admin assessment of Giano's on-wiki activity, plus answers to people's questions, rebuttals of unhelpful statements, and so on. The length is much more related to the need for extreme thoroughness, given the bad-faith interpretation and accusations going around, and the number of users with an interest. In this case, an administrator was driven into retirement, accusations and allegations abounded, bad faith was shown, and there was significant effort to deflect the actual issue [42]. None of this was necessary. (Diffs/links are in the discussion.) These all kept it long.

It would also have been a lot shorter if those discussing had stuck to the point, and discussed "was the comment itself, and the conduct thereafter, reasonable for an admin to deem uncivil, bad faith or personal attack", or if people had sought to reach agreement that this was "unhelpful conduct, don't do it again", instead of fielding questions on many other issues such as:

• IRC freenode hosting,
• en-admins policy and history,
• giano's history,
• the entirety of civility policy,
• another user's mis-reading of a log,
• whether en-admins issues are handled appropriately,
• whether en-admins should exist,
• the effects of problematic conduct on users and the community,
• what has been asked of Giano on multiple occasions, and
• the minutiae of whether it was within norms for the community.

This would have kept the whole thread short. As it was I got asked everything from "what are your views on the civility police", downwards. That's how it got long. Avruch actually commented to Giano, ""You don't dispute FT2's account, but it solidly contradicts any account you've given of the event and its core issues"" link above. See User_talk:FT2#Bringing_the_threads_together for the thread broken down by topic area that had to be covered. I must have stated a dozen times now and previously that if conduct changed then admins would have zero interest. In such extreme circumstances, a few extra words to ensure intention is not misrepresented and is clear to any reader, is probably unavoidable. Ironically, the admin who would have written less, was driven off the project earlier. As Doc G says, one doesn't get to poison the well, then complain about the water [43]. A number of users have made clear that fuller answers are valued. Instead we got this. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a brief point for one. KWSN has returned already and experience tells me he will be back fully active and kicking. He is not THAT kind of a user who would leave the beloved adminship that gives him an illusion of importance and being in position to "run things". As for the rest, including on Giano's being responsible for KWSN's "departure", I will post later. --Irpen 22:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This primarily a continuation of the past block discussion as has occurred elsewhere, especially on FT2's talk page. We can close it as resolved and move on since questions about the block have been asked and answered. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• We seem to be done for now. Thatcher 22:39, 23 April 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.

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

All parties are reminded of the committee's second, and unenforcable remedy "The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute." The instruction here is to find an approach that will achieve consensus. I suggest that such an approach will result in some pages kept, some merged, and some removed - but you all already knew that. Eusebeus is specifically reminded that it isn't particularly wise to engage in the same pattern of behavior that got another editor sanctioned by the ArbComm. The diffs presented do not move me to take action outside arbitration enforcement. GRBerry 14:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Eusebeus, who is well aware of the decisions of the recent episodes arbcom case, has begun blindly restoring redirects, without the slightest bit of prior discussion, citing WP:FICT as his basis for this, despite the fact it is still under discussion--Jac16888 (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I have to say that's pretty egregious. Just a note for an admin with actual experience. I'm inclined to simply block them to stop this disruption. --Haemo (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As requested. The arbcom case this is related to is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, and User:Eusebeus is the only party involved, since attempts to discuss it with him have resulted in blunt, somewhat rude responses which basically equate to "I'm doing this and you can't stop me"--Jac16888 (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Diffs would make this much easier to investigate. It is not clear that there is a remedy in this case which is enforcable, and if there is no enforcable remedy then diffs won't matter for arbitration enforcement. They may, however, lead an administrator to act based on those diffs in and of themselves, without it being arbitration enforcement. GRBerry 19:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry, heres a few, but it should be noted that so far Eusebeus has redirected around a hundred pages, episodes of Scrubs so far. [44],[45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. He has also begun edit-warring with User:Rebecca, reverting her undoing of some of his redirects, [53], [54]. In addition, he has redirected all .hack characters (admittedly not something i am familiar with) based on one persons suggestion of doing so, [55], [56], [57], [58], and has since been reverted by User:Ned Scott, and has also begun redirecting House (TV series) characters, [59].--Jac16888 (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all about how you approach the situation. I didn't directly revert Eusebeus for the .hack characters, because I also added merge tags and I told him that they should still be merged, but we needed to plan it out (the merge target had basically no content at all, and there were multiple games/shows/etc that might be better organized on more than one list). Part of the problem is that it's easy to see these situations as all-or-nothing, even if there are other options. -- Ned Scott 05:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Scrubs episode articles have been discussed for consisting of nothing but plot since November 2007, and the only way to rectify this per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT is to expand or merge/redirect. The expand didn't happen (it's not even clear that this is possible at all), so it's the latter now. Eusebeus resumed merge discussions after the arbcom case closed (middle of March) and is only taking actions now. Based on that, it would be hard to interpret his actions as wrong. It's been almost five months after all. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be other issues here as well: backhanded apology to White Cat, insulting another user, and this use of obscenity in edit summary. Now as for the "discussion" on scrubs articles, I'm not sure these are helpful: he says "We are part of the Imperial Cabal of Evil Deletionists, and the campaign to ruin Wikipedia is simply a first step toward the larger goal of Total World Domination," accuses others of "bitching", and he says "That is not to say that I am not evil AND ruining wikipedia for everybody." Consider also his post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Melting of Maggie Bean, when everyone is arguing to keep, including those who initially nominated and argued to delete, he tosses in a delete in which he mocks me. On my talk page he outright says, "I am not a keen contirbutor of content, having only rarely done so. I prefer the ruining it for everyone part" and let's not forget that during the ArbCom he declared his intention to proxy on TTN's behalf. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

When you're told g*d-knows-how-often that your evil deletionism will eternally ruin wikipedia (although your edits are totally in line with policy and guidelines), one way is to just "admit" it before the others can get to you, in order to demonstrate how silly these accusations would sound. And Eusebeus is simply "admitting" it. I share Eusebeus' odd sense of humor in real life (i.e. off-wiki), but I know that sarcasm may not translate well in the series of tubes. Which seems to be happening here. I don't expect anyone to ignore or excuse Eusebeus' "humor", but I still see no truth in Jac's initial claims (except citing FICT - Eusebeus should have cited NOTE and EPISODE to get the same results). Anything else is just muddying the water in a situation that has been testy for everyone in the last few months. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that there is enough disagreement that many would argue his edits are not in line with policy and guidelines as interpreted and understand by multiple good faith editors. What frustrates me is that I have made at least two (see here and here) attempts to be friendly with him in the hopes that even if we disagree we'd at least have had some pleasant and constructive interactions that would make any future disagreements more civil. I have not really been extended the same courtesy or generosity. Moreover, what bothers me is that generally speaking anyone who leaves some kind of anti-inclusionist missive on my talk page actually argues to keep articles far less frequently (if at all) than I argue to delete articles, as I did in these discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alhaji sani labaran, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butt harp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funeral For My Chemical Valentine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insane Pro Wrestling, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interdenominational Church of Huberianism (Apostolic), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jieming Unit, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regular coffee for a regular guy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.I.T.C.H. The Movie: The Ultimate War, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Screambox 2, etc. Finally, per the ArbCom case's evidence page (see here and here), it is apparent that the case was not just about TTN. Consider as well this proposed rememdy that SEVEN editors (Casliber, Edison, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, Maniwar, Pixelface, Tim Q. Wells, Ursasapien, and Yukichigai) supported and only three opposed (other than Black Kite and Ned Scott, the third one of the opposed was ban evading sock User:Jack Merridew, so really only two legitimate opposes). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this thread about Eusebeus and his edits to the Scrubs episode articles (and by extention to the .hack character articles), or isn't it? If it is, he did no such thing as what Jac claims (E. did discuss Scrubs for many many months, and since no-one else fixed the articles to be in line with policy, he did; .hack did not result in anything but a friendly disagreement without any edit-warring so far). If it's not about Scrubs and .hack, I could list all the extremely positive encounters I had with Eusebeus, and no-one would be any smarter. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone notified Eusebeus about this discussion? I don't see anything on this talk page, so I'll leave him a note there as well. -- Ned Scott 19:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hey Jac16888, what part of Please notify the user of your report at his or her user talk page do you not understand exactly? I don't mind that you want to bring enforcement down on me since, it's true, I'm not a keen contributor of content, having only rarely done so. I prefer the ruining it for everyone part. But there's some pretty basic etiquette here; failure to notify is reprehensible, devious, shameful and cowardly. I don't feel I need to defend any of my edits. I was WP:BOLD and redirected a bunch of miserable .hack articles. These were reverted by Ned who said he would fix them and sobeit. Otherwise we'll take them to AfD. But where, exactly, is the edit warring in the face of disagreement over my .hack edits? Scrubs is a self-evidently justified merge. And if you wish to add further consideration, I will soon be merging some House characters as well per the ongoing discussion at the talk page there. Pumpkin, what can I say ? Stop being so churlish. Eusebeus (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologise Eusebeus, i did intend to inform you, but got dragged away by the real world before doing so, and then forgot. Believe me or not, its the truth. Do you really think that comments like the above really help? You have your opinion i have mine, character assassination achieves nothing. As for not edit warring, what do you call this [60]? And bold doesn't apply if there have already been several discussions about such edits. Nothing in your comment above even slightly defends your edits, rather it is just an unjustified attack on myself. And by the way, i have already raised the issue of House--Jac16888 (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually made a good faith effort to improve an article you created as a peace offering and you replied with this and this. So, you removed the sources I added, but did NOT add the sources you cite in your edit summary (the article currently has NO sources). Now imagine if the article was on some popular culture item or was a list; under the same circumstances you could AfD this relatively new article with "unreferenced" claims. So, if anything is frustrating it is when one attempts to find somewhere in which we might get along and even that is rebuffed. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll accept your explanation. But you are trying to get me blocked - blocked note - based on discrediting my contributions and my record, mischaracterising my actions, and inflating a set of edits that share clearly evident internal consistency and integrity into some kind of wanton spree of vandalism. Oh, and you don't bother to notify me you've done this. So, perhaps you will accept that I don't look too favourably upon the matter. Hint: if you don't have time to provide the notifications, don't file the complaint until you can do it properly. That's just good manners son. Eusebeus (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to be patronizing or is it just how you normally talk? And i don't see how you can talk about good manners considering some of your recent comments, as Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles has demonstrated. Staggering though it may sound, i am not trying to get you blocked, i really have no desire to see any non-vandal blocked, i simply started this discussion because i saw your redirects taking place without discussion, and in my opinion(which, by the way, i am entitled too), thought they were out of line, and thus was dragged back into arguments like these which i have been avoiding for months. I have not "mischaracterising your actions" i stated what you had done and gave proof, i leave it up to the community to decide who is right, and will gladly accept whatever decision comes out of this, whether it is in support of your edits or not. Can you say the same thing? --Jac16888 (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Ok, Jac, take note since instead of contrition for your wanton breach of conduct, you offer a passive-aggressive defense of your caricature of my actions. Based on your own feelings, based not on Wikipedia praxis or policy, you are unhappy that I merged Scrubs material which does not satisfy our standards at WP:FICT - which in recent review has reconfirmed with additional forcefulness our injunction against standalone articles as vehicles for plot summaries; moreover, WT:FICT is a discussion to which you cannot apparently be bothered to contribute, although you have plenty of time to report me to AE, although not enough time to notify me. But I harp.

I discussed this merge at some length and explained, with specific reference to our policy pages and ongoing discussions why this merge was justified by consensus practices. I - note, I - was then reverted without explanation by several editors who didn't bother to discuss the matter with me, but simply undid my efforts with a "no consensus" explanation. I have notified editors Catchpole and Rebecca that their dismissive revert, absent discussion, despite the heretofore referenced discussion which I had initiated and the actions which I had substantiated, was unacceptable. Both are cognisant of, but indifferent to, the consensus practices to which I had repeatedly made reference and to which they had the opportunity to contribute but simply - like you - could not be bothered. And yet you have time to bring me to AE. But don't have time to inform me. But I harp.

Apparently you don't have enough time to read the Arbcom ruling either. This is not a victory for one side or another, despite the apparent widespread conviction that it sanctioned content deemed otherwise unacceptable per WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. That is not true. The arbcom case:

1. Was explicitly about TTN's actions, not mine; and
2. Enjoined editors from abusive editing practices and edit-warring.

No good faith evaluation of my efforts or my edits, combined with my extensive contribution history of improving and adding content to Wikipedia, including the kind of shit translation work that few editors bother to do, could be interpreted as constituting a breach of that ruling, at least not without first bringing your concerns to me so I could politely and reasonably provide you context for the actions undertaken with which you disagree. In case you hadn't noticed, my sobriquet is Eusebeus not TTN. But then, if you hadn't time to notify me of this attempt to smear my editing record, why should I expect you to have the time to read the arbcom case you were referencing. Or even time to notify ... But I harp.

Listen, I understand you are unhappy that Wikipedia is not a fansite and I wish you had chosen to talk to me civilly about this instead of needlessly wasting up the time of arbcom and imputing my good faith and my intent. I have contributed to the discussions and debates that provide the context for my actions and i reject your appeal that permits you to engage in this drive-by without being called to task for it. Your Who-Me? shucksterism in comments like i stated what you had done and gave proof, i leave it up to the community to decide who is right doesn't wash. You should at least show contrition for the way you have proceeded in violation of the good faith principles, consensus practices and guideline and policy discussions that serve to keep this project vaguely glued together. Not whine about my supposedly supercilious attitude.

As for the diffs provided by Pumpkin they are hardly germane. The "obscenity" he refers is used to describe an article that I myself authored - go read the article if you like and try to watch more George Carlin. The ruining it for everyone is a joke; but I urge you to read the diff that Pumpkin provides in that instance because I think it offers an excellent summary of that editor's disruptive and pointy practices. But this is irrelevant to the larger problem posed by your conduct here, as I see it. Eusebeus (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think all everyone is asking is for you to stop editing in a disruptive and pointy fashion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Eusebeus continues to display TTN-type behaviour by edit-warring over redirects and ignoring talk page discussion that disagrees with him. See [61] and Talk:House (TV series). Catchpole (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that Eusebeus seems to be repeating the disruptive behaviour of TTN. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Ok. Firstly, As i have already said, i am not attacking you, despite what you think ([62]) if you actually read my opening comments you will see that they are in fact a pure statement of fact, although if anyone else feels i am attacking Eusebeus please tell me so, its seems very much the other way around to me, nor am i doing this because of any particular bias i may have, i tried to distance myself from these discussions long ago and only came back because i do see your edits as violating the arbcom case i.e. the bit about " stopping abusive editing practices and edit-warring". While you may not be violating the letter of this ruling, i believe (yet again my opinion) that you are violating the spirit, especially since you appear to be proxying for TTN. I do not need to be reminded what wikipedia is not, i spend a fair amount of time keeping the scrubs articles free of too much cruft, even though admittedly work does need doing, that is not a reason for redirecting them. I believe you yourself need to be reminded what wikipedia is not, that is ,it is not a battleground. Need i remind you that i did attempt to discuss your edits (civily, as i always do),[63], and your response was more of an attack on my motivations than an attempt at peaceful discussion,[64].As for your claim that you discussed these reverts, the discussion you linked to took place quite a while ago, and there was no consensus to merge. In no way have i violated good faith principles, just as i feel that you haven't, i'm aware that you are acting in good faith, that doesn't stop me from disagreeing, i was well within my rights to begin this discussion, and a as wikipedian you should accept the possiblity that you maybe subject to such discussions about your conduct, rfc/u's, rfcu's, 3rr reports etc.--Jac16888 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 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.

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

User warned ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen TTN (after Ep & Char 2) tagging articles for lack of notability (see, eg here) Now, I'm not trying to call him out on this or get any enforcement going, but I see people a bit upset at these edits and thus seek clarification to make sure that he's not stepping on the toes of this.

The decision text is : TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate.

Now

• The articles in question are only video game articles. Note that during the injunction of the case, any character related article, not just television, were granted protection from deletion. "To be interpreted broadly" could imply any fictional character, not just television related.
• Notability tagging is not necessarily the same as a "request" for merge/redirect/deletion, but again "broadly" could be interpreted as such.

Everything else he's done (only within the last week sicne the case was closed) seems reasonable (trimming character lists but not deleting or merging or redirecting anything). Again, I only seek clarification if the broad interpretation of the ArbCom relates to the notability tagging activities, and if TTN should be warned that he's getting close. If he's not close to any issue raised by Arbcom, then end of discussion. --MASEM 14:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that TTN is getting close, as the wording was broad enough to include behavior such as this numerous tagging of articles. A warning may be suitable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User warned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:31, 22 April 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.

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

No action required; complainant advised to see relevant policy pages. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm requesting immediate removal of editing privileges of user Aude with regards to the 9/11 attacks article as well as removing any of his/hers revisions. This user made enormous, even preposterous changes in the main space without sharing a single thought on talk page! Such actions are in direct violation of each and every decision Arbcom made and thus constitute outrageous and utterly unacceptable form of vandalism (harsh, but most appropriate allegation this is!). We are witnessing utter disregard to our policies, utter disregard to the community and utter disregard to the consensus by a single editor. Let me ask you, what sort of place we have here if the free minded editors who act in good faith have to bow and take these sorts of insults, a slap on the face of our whole community this is! I'm expecting immediate response to this issue; there are no words strong enough to condemn actions of this particular user and the complicit silence which follows his/hers unacceptable behavior. Tachyonbursts (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This request is absurd. Nothing Aude has done constitutes disruptive behavior. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Your reply is absurd; we all know the sensitivity of the issue. We all have to follow our guidelines. Hours were wasted on reaching consensus for that section and then this Aude persona comes along and without single explanation implements changes of vast proportion utterly disregarding our policies and patient discussions we had? As ludicrous as unacceptable such action is. Good folks suffered indefinite bans for lesser mischiefs. There is not a single editor on Wikipedia that can take ownership of that (or any other) article; we do not carry double standards here. Those changes constitute vandalism (they are way beyond disruptive behavior!), those changes our one of the worst implementation of POV I've seen in a while and as such they cannot pass unsanctioned. This is not the hegemony; we have means to deal with rogue editors who are running amok and we should use those without any discrimination whatsoever. What user Aude did there is in no way different from what we're sanctioning on regular basis. How would you act if the person would jump into main space and state that WTC 7 was brought down by the means of controlled demolition? No, this swindle goes both ways, and any editor who acts on his own while neglecting decisions of Arbcom should and will be held accountable. Tachyonbursts (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no violation of the arbcom decision here. I would advise Tachyonbursts to carefully review Wikipedia's definition of vandalism and its policy on personal attacks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:55, 26 April 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.

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

Thomas Basboll banned from 9/11 articles, appealing to ArbCom. east.718 at 21:44, April 26, 2008

We have a big problem at this article with a tendentious group of editors who have conducted a straw poll and decided that those who believe in fringe theories may write about them as if they are mainstream views.[65] This horrendous POV pushing needs to be stopped, and policies such as WP:UNDUE need to be enforced. There is an arbitration decision, I believe, covering all 9/11-related articles. Jehochman ^Talk 02:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit summmary refers to the talk page which includes a poll. Under the poll (and in the summary) I explicitly said I was making a bold change and would not object if anyone thought it was too early. I had invited Jehochman to participate in the poll on his talk page and the discussion had run for a week, clearly leaning to one side. I now see why Jehochman (and perhaps others) did not participate in the poll and discussion. He believes that there is a policy (and an ArbCom decision) that makes discussion unnecessary. This is once again a good opportunity to determine whether what I am doing here is POV-pushing (as has been alleged many times before), and whether the discretionary sanctions should therefore be applied.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never been involved in the 9/11 articles because they're such a battleground, but the diff that Jehochman provided is accurately summarized in his phrase "horrendous POV pushing." I'm not sure what the arbcom sanctions cover (as mentioned I've avoided the articles), but it would be a travesty if they did not apply here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing subtle here. Truthers have been trying to whitewash the article for quite some time, and a variety of editors have been attempting to restore neutral point of view. Id est: [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] At some point people need to understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advancing fringe theories. The community has been put on notice. Enough is enough. Jehochman ^Talk 08:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've invoked the arbcom decision to ban Thomas from September 11 attacks-related articles. I've noted such on his talk page. Raul654 (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I will of course respect this ban. I will be appealling directly to the committee, however. I believe that my edits over the last several years have been consistently contributing to the improvement of the articles (on both sides of the "pushing" that I am allegedly doing). Jehochman and I disagree about a very subtle content issue and I have been discussing it openly and civily throughout. If it is impossible to convince the community that I am here for the right reasons, then I have misunderstood the ArbCom case that brought me back to editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have appealled the ban Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_appeal:_Topic_ban_ofThomas_Basboll.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Appeal was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions Raul654 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a truly uninvolved editor needs to look at the administrative abuse of Raul654, as shown on the evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions. Raul is heavily involved with 9/11 articles and has strong POV about this subject. He also did not warn Thomas before blocking him. Inclusionist (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A look at Thomas's contributions shows that he was closely involved in the arbcom case in terms of both evidence and the proposed decision. It is simply not credible to propose that he was unaware of the decision and its enforcement provisions, and thus needed a warning. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:53, 24 April 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.

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

Two month ban and 55-hour block issued and logged. east.718 at 21:46, April 26, 2008

Here's another long time source of POV pushing on this article. [72] This editor should be subject to the same sanction. Jehochman ^Talk 12:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually reverting your unilateraly editing without consensus is certainly NOT "POV pushing". Your unilaterally editing wothout consensus could instead be viewed as a form of "POV pushing".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that my editing is supported by verfiable sources and seeks to follow neutral point of view. You would do well to listen to feedback, rather than digging in and continuing to battle. Jehochman ^Talk 16:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide whether your edit is supported, is NPOV or is nice: it's up to the wikipedia community by means of consensus.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and those of us in the Wikipedia community who aren't here to push a fringe agenda are thoroughly tired of your POV-pushing. You know very well that there will never be consensus for anything on that article, because you're part of an activist bloc which elevates stonewalling to an art form. <eleland/talkedits> 18:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The same could obviously be said of other people who tries to push your POV.
2. You are deliberately assuming bad faith and personally attacking me without any ground.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I might note that you also re-inserted a pretty egregious BLP violation just yesterday because it advances your fringe POV on the issue. --Haemo (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You are being very dishonest: of course I reverted an unilateral edit without any estabilished consensus and discussion from an estabilished version of the article, like you also have done many many times, didn't you? --Pokipsy76 (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Support an immediate topic ban based on that diff. That's an article probation violation and a BLP violation all in one. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Two-month topic ban imposed, communicated to the user and logged.[73] Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Without any previous warning? Please read what the arbcom wrote about this "discretionary sanctions" before implementing them in the wrong way.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary. You are just deciding to ban people who seems to have a POV different from yours. This is obviously not the spitit of the wikipedia project.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, they're banning people who are disrupting the project. Be glad that you were given just two months. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is just your personal opinion, we all know your extreme positions and I really don't think that a neutral admin should act according to such unbalanced views.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You've just violated your ban.[74] Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked them for that edit; although it's not to an article, such a line of argument would be verging dangerously close to rules-lawyering. The comment on the talk page served no purpose but to inflame discussion from the peanut gallery, and such behavior needs to be discouraged. east.718 at 07:40, April 22, 2008

I explained in my talk page why I made this mistake.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 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.

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

Banned from 9/11 articles for six weeks. east.718 at 21:46, April 26, 2008

I'd ask for consideration of action on this editor as well. His quote sums up his purpose here pretty well: The mainstream account is propaganda created by the Bush regime, repeated verbatim by a captive domestic media, then parroted again by foreign media. [75] Look at this revert [76] "an uncounted, but presumably large number of members of the engineering community"?? Presumably?? Why do we have to put up with this? RxS (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Final warning given. The next disruptive or tendentious edit will result in a topic ban on 9/11 related articles, broadly construed. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw an edit placing lots of OR in Conspiracy theory, and another tendentiously stonewalling regarding sources on Talk:9/11 Truth Movement, both after Raymond Arritt's final warning. As such, I've banned Wowest from all 9/11-related pages for about five weeks. east.718 at 11:01, April 22, 2008

1. The edit you are referring to in Conspiracy theory is the expressin of the consensus on the talk page which is clearly against the deletion of that section.
2. Really Conspiracy theory can be considered a 9/11 related topic (and therefore under the arbcom rules)? Actually it is about conspiracy theories in general.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

   Pokipsy76, this tendentiousness really has to stop. There are plenty of Wikipedians around who can help resolve disputes. As you have been topic banned already, you may find yourself blocked if you continue to involve yourself in conspiracy theory disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 19:15, 24 April 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.

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

Xiutwel banned indefinitively from 9/11 articles, by Chetblong (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)

Xiutwel (talk • contribs • count) is another user engaging in tendentious pro-Truther soapboxing and stonewalling. [77] [78] Additionally, they left me a bogus warning, apparently in retaliation for my involvement above. [79] This account proudly declares on their user page that they are here for the purpose of ideological struggle.[80] I suggest either a final warning, topic ban, or indefinite block for disruption, as appropriate in the discretion of the administrator who reviews this request. The time for nonsense on these articles has come and gone. Xiutwel participated in the arbitration case, so they are certainly on notice about what is acceptable, and what isn't.[81] Jehochman ^Talk 02:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I also got a "warning" from Xiutwel. [82] This has been going on for 2+ years with him. At this point, I don't seem him changing his way on 9/11 pages. --Aude (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

He also "warned"` Raul, which wasn't a particularly well-advised action. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel has been one of the most singularly disruptive influences on 9/11-related articles. The stonewalling and absolutely tendentious arguments he has repeated for literally years come in ebbs and flows — at first, I thought he simply didn't understand Wikipedia's policies and was having language issues understanding them. Unfortunately, that's simply not the case — he simply wants to interpret them in a way which will advance his personal point of view on the issue. Endless thousands of pages of text have been written addressing his novel interpretations, which will (at best) simply induce him to change his argument — never what he is advocating, which just so happens to agree with is POV on the matter. He doesn't see this as a problem, and doesn't view any of his behavior as the issue, since he's convinced himself that he's neutral and everyone else is biased — although the sheer breadth of his fringe advocacy, from 9/11 conspiracy theories, the OKC bombings, and fringe science to the moon landing hoax, is very telling. --Haemo (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel's disruption is well-documented. As Haemo writes above, Xiutwel is extremely disruptive. Not only is Xiutwel disruptive, but he often begins discussions which lead to disruption by other users. A topic ban (or indef block) enacted against Xiutwel would be the best effect of the ArbCom decision. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on reviewing the comments above, I tend to think that Ice Cold Beer is probably right. I'm too new at this to stick out my neck as far as seems indicated to me as justified, though. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, then will somebody please apply the appropriate sanctions to Xiutwel? Jehochman ^Talk 17:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It is painfully obvious that Jehochman is using arbitration enforcement to stiffle different opinions and views he personally disagress with. Jehochman is attempting to silence the contributions all of the editors he is in an edit war with, and involved admins such as Raul654 are silencing these editors, with no warning as the arbitration decisions demands.

Everything that Jehochman claims these users are guilty of he and other "deletionist" editors are guilty of also. I find it very ironic that Haemo writes: [Xiutwel] "convinced himself that he's neutral and everyone else is biased" when Jehochman, Haemo, Ice Cold beer, Aude and other editors here, who have extremely strong biases against alternative views about 9/11, feel that only their views are NPOV. It is clear that Jehochman and the rest of these "deletionists" are also in an "ideological struggle". Jehochman is as guilty of edit warring as these other users. He did not abide by the straw poll which he lost. The blatant hypocricy here of the "deletionists" here boggles the mind.

Xiutwel's, Thomas's, Popsy's and the other conspiracy theorists ideas about 9/11 are silly and have no basis in fact. But a large minority of people agree with these users, and if Wikipedia is truly to have a "neutral point of view" these "conspiracy theorists" sourced views belong on Wikipedia also. Inclusionist (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Travb (talk · contribs), this is not an Inclusionists vs. Deletionists battle. Editors have been banned for being tendentious and disruptive, not because of their views. Jehochman ^Talk 05:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In your classification, not giving undue weight to fringe theories constitutes an "extremely strong bias". I don't feel my views are NPOV, and you would be hard pressed to even know what they were from my editing. I try and ensure that these contentious areas are not used to advance fringe theories that are not supported in reliable sources — for that, I am accused of being a "deletionist". You talk a lot about inclusionism and neutral point of view but, like all people who propound Wikipedia giving these theories credence, you totally ignore the other part of the policy — and one which is incredibly important in these subject areas. You appear determined to throw everything and the kitchen sink at anyone who disagree with you, and believe you are engaged in some kind of struggle against a monolithic whole who seek to suppress dissent. You're not — you're up against broadly involved admins and editors with a long history of investing in an encyclopedia and who wish to see the project advance as an encyclopedia — and not as a place to promote fringe theories. --Haemo (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely banned from all pages related to 9/11 by Chetblong (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). east.718 at 12:11, April 24, 2008 {{

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

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

Following in User:67.164.76.73's footsteps (see resolved, below), except he's already done 2 each today on Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center‎, Jesse Ventura, and Template:911tm‎.

Has claimed in the past to be User:Bov, who has been warned many times, but not necessarily since the Arbcom.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and if you look at the IP's deleted userpage there's an note about Bov using that IP there as well. The contribs make it pretty clear it's the same user. RxS (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Bov's user page implies that there are multiple IP addresses from which he regularly edits. Anyone know the others, so that I can take a holistic view of his recent edits? GRBerry 14:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:67.164.76.73 is pretty clearly him as well. RxS (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:76.103.153.118 in addition. RxS (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And now this from Bov (as 133)[83] This is what they do, nonsensical bans on people to block the information they don't want out there and to keep the labels attached to people they need to try to discredit. (there's more)...seems like a commitment to keep at it, and personally I'm sick of it. RxS (talk) 21:09, 23 April 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.

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

Blocked indefinitely for general disruption and legal threats.

Can we get an uninvolved admin here for a warning/block (whatever you feel is appropriate at this point). Less than 20 edits and he's called an editor in good standing a vandal (twice) [84], reverted an edit after calling for sanctions on that same editor [85] and this I'd kindly suggest you explain your conduct which I consider to constitute deliberate omission of unacceptable behavior by user Aude. [86]. All in as I say, less than 20 edits. Thanks. RxS (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm handling this one in light of the instructions that users "should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines" and that we need to make some allowance for "genuinely inexperienced editors." I've given him (her) some advice on policy,[87][88] and if he (she) chooses not to heed that advice, we can proceed with other steps as necessary. But it would be best for all concerned if it doesn't come to that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Good enough, I just want to nip this in the bud if possible, if he can be guided that's certainly better than a block. I've seen this cycle repeated so many times I may not have the proper patience. RxS (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm going to be held responsible for your zealous participation in 9/11 cover-up [89]. Perhaps by being forced to live in a FEMA trailer, he wasn't clear on that point. Oh well...Then the Greek appears on the second floor, In his bare feet with a rope around his neck, While a loser in the gambling room lights up a candle, Says, "Open up another deck." RxS (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody please ban User:Tachyonbursts. That diff cited by Rx StrangeLove is appalling, and it came just 75 minutes after Raymond's warning. Jehochman ^Talk 14:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI he's left similar odd warnings on my talk page [90]. I warned him against making legal threats before, so it's not like this is a new thing. --Haemo (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And just in case anyone is casually looking at this and doesn't follow the link, here's part of the message left Haemo: All evidence stored in wiki history should, and will be used in court of law.. Why isn't he banned/blocked? I f&*^%g sick of this. RxS (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for general disruption and legal threats. They're probably not a new account either, finding AN on their first edit and being familiar with all the actors of the dispute immediately. east.718 at 21:43, April 26, 2008

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

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

NOTE: The following input might be more difficult to follow than incivility since it's content related. However, it depicts a POV source related problem.

[edit] Previous activity

Previously Eleland has,
(a) Rejected Washington Times and the BBC to promote -- alongside PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- the WP:FRINGE theory/blood-libel that Battle of Jenin was (supposedly) a large scale massacre.[91], [92], [93]
(b) Replaced "partisan-hackery links" (CAMERA, AIJAC) with (neutral?) ElectronicIntifada.net.[94]
(c) Rejected 'Arutz Sheva', a leading right wing Israeli news outlet for it's (alleged) - "reputation for producing outright fraudulent "news", calling it a "disreputable racist fringe source".[95]
(d) He even rejected the word 'documentary' to describe a video only using live-recorded clips of real life situations based on the notion that "it's full of lies".[96]
(e) He's also made a similar BLP violation, reinstating a quote made on March 5 into a lead paragraph on Operation Defensive Shield, an Israeli response to a month of suicide bombings culminating with a March 27th attack;[97] this after the paragraph/quote context was explained more than once ([98], [99]).

[edit] April 2008 activity

In continuation with the previous "rv extremist POV" diff (above) Eleland was also taking part in a WP:GAME team war approach -- following Pedro Gonnet (now Pedrito) and Nickhh -- to creating/supporting BLP violations on Avigdor Lieberman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), a right-wing Israeli politician.

• "rv extremist POV" diff removed NPOV text from the article and ended up using a "branded such proposals as racist and illegal" quote on notations that don't appear in it's source.
  • The removed NPOV text:
    "Liberman added that he was ready to evacuate his West Bank settlement home in Nokdim to achieve this proposal." source: http://www.dawn.com/2004/05/28/int8.htm (reuters)
• Removing context (attacks on March 2-3) and adding anti-Israel, Islamist Al-Jazeera smear article as a source '5 April 2008', after Momento and Ryan Postlethwaite expressed BLP concerns also.
• Again (21:46, 15 April 2008), this time on a compromise version which included only "following 9 Palestinian attacks on Israelis" as pretext, apparently, not compromise enough.
• "offered to provide the buses" Eleland, 21:41, 15 April 2008
  Text is sourced to "According to another report" in violation of WP:REDFLAG.

[edit] Content related discussion

The 'removing context' stuff centres around whether the context was properly sourced. That is whether there were adequate sources linking the events to the politician's remarks. I think removing this context, when it wasn't sourced is a justifiable edit. I agree there are legitimate BLP concerns about the entire controversy section, however I'm not convinced that removing inadequately sourced content is being disruptive. I'm not saying the edit was correct, but I'm saying that in my humble opinion, it wasn't disruptive. PhilKnight (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the removal of nyjtimes.com and adding an al-Jazeera link kinda dismisses your WP:AGF, but that's my personal opinion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This document compiled by Jaakobou is one of several dossiers, apparently, that he is compiling against editors he often finds himself in conflict with. They are usually tailored so as to be unrecognizable to those whose comments are quoted. To control each diff and evaluate them requires several hours, not to speak of lengthy checking of the actual discursive run on talk pages. But what I vigorously disagree with is that, once with myself and now with Eleland Jaakobou lays his evidence out incrementally, day by day, before selected administrators (jpgordon in Eleland's case, yourself, Phil, in my case, without the slightest hint to his intended victim, that he is laying a serious complaint. I only found out that he was doing this by sheer coincidence, several days after he began seeding your own page with a section on complaints against me. By the time the dossier assumes depth, without one's ability to contest each piece, the impression is created of a systematic Israel-bashing lout. I think this unethical. In my own case, I preferred not to waste time even treating this tactic seriously. Eleland appears to think it worth detailed arbitration. I have corresponded with Eleland on this here and on my talk page. I don't think Wiki should be systematically transformed into a whingeing room, there's far too much work to be done. But I do vigorously protest this ominous new tendency by Jaakobou to mount selective dossiers, behind people's backs, and use them with a series of distinct administrators to create the impression, discretely, that a whole gang of marauding louts invest the articles where he himself edits, and that somehow he is a victim. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I see in the meantime that PhilKnight has removed his comment. But this remark was addressed to him.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 23 April 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.

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

Closing thread, both users left notes, plus see final comment in thread. Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like your thoughts on whether this comment is in violation of enforcement 1 of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch (found here). henrik•talk 20:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that I didn't write the ad hom or go after Jimbo for the Rachel Marsden affair I fail to see how I violated anything. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I get it -- it's OK to harrass me. Nice. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not really harassment, more like obnoxious. It would be wise to delete the remark and move on. Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right ... it was probably just obnoxious, I probably just over-reacted (Note: I am not being sarcastic, I just think JE is right)

I noticed that edit as well. This is a tricky one. I've been trying to broker a compromise on this at the ANI thread here. I suggest that both Jim and Videmus Omnia are warned for their conduct here, and that the details of what happened here are recorded at the case pages for future reference, and that further grievances be directed to the Arbitration Committee. I would be happy to do this if no-one objects. Carcharoth (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, no offense, but as the victim of the attack I object. We don't normally cite or jail victims. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. My warnings are very bland. I think both you and VO are getting off lightly here. This could have been a lot worse, with more edit warring, and blocks left right and centre. In an attempt to end this now, I am going to go ahead with my proposal. Carcharoth (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Carcharoth. Both parties are pushing the limits and would be well-advised to stear clear of each other. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: the threat henrik cites was not made to Videmus Omnia but rather to me. It seemed preposterous more than ominous given the circumstances; see our full exchange at User talk:A. B.#VO. Just the same, threats such as this hardly add to the tone of this place and, as history has shown, have been used to advantage by Jim in the past. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Parting shot at VO. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh no, it's known as a statement of fact. Has rationality been banned? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I was about to close this thread, as I have made things clear to both editors here and here, but I see this thread still has legs. On the other hand, Newyorkbrad intervened directly here. I'm not sure if this means the thread should be left open, to allow assessment of Jim's responses, or whether it would be better to close it all now. I would favour the latter, but will let someone else do it if they agree. I will add notes to the case pages later, once the threads are definitely closed. Carcharoth (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur in closing. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I assume that my sarcastic comments are a no-no Give me a fucking break -- we should cherish editors capable of sarcasm (using and understanding) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC))? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility, please. And we all know that sarcasm is hard to distinguish over the internet, I know I tryand avoid it if I can. Wizardman 22:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Understanding sarcasm is something my 4-yr-old does. Weird. Of course, she doesn't really read yet. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim, it is your choice whether to take this further, but I will ask you again to please stop escalating and prolonging the dispute. The arbitration case remedy was quite clear, and several different editors have told you to step back. I am closing this thread now. As Newyorkbrad said: "Issues concerning this user's departure message can be resolved without resort to these tactics. Any concern you may have with this instruction should be referred directly to the Arbitration Committee." Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 27 April 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.

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

Unblock request denied by uninvolved admin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

TTN was blocked for one week today, despite the fact that he has not violated a single term of the restrictions from his arbcom enforcement. "Broadly interpreting" [100] and [101] as substantially amounting to a merge or deletion is a broad interpretation beyond all reason.

Arbcom did not say that TTN couldn't trim bad articles. It did not say that he couldn't discuss deletions on talk pages. It just did not say anything against the things that TTN has actually done. This block should be reversed immediately.Kww (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kww, I'm not sure about immediately reversing the block - we could wait for the arbitrators to respond to the request for clarification.--PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It can always be reinstated later if they say "Oops ... we really intended to restrict him from editing and discussing, too." Kww (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) @Kww: This was the second posting about TTN here at WP:AE in the last week or so. User was warned to exercise caution but seems that he/she did not find that necessary. I would oppose an unblock at this stage. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, yes I agree, we shouldn't unblock at this stage. Also, looking at User_talk:TTN#Block, the unblock request has been declined by an uninvolved admin. PhilKnight (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's really a shame that the "winners" of the Arbcom case can get TTN blocked when he is complying with the restrictions, solely by raising such a fuss that it is easier to block TTN than to put up with listening to his detractors.Kww (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom cases are not about editors being "winners" or "losers", or to perpetuate disputes. The only winner/loser is the project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that ... that's what those " marks meant. Perhaps you should explain to the people that complain about him that they didn't win, and that unjustified complaints won't result in TTN being blocked. Unless, of course, unjustified complaints will result in him being blocked.Kww (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Kww is missing the whole point of arbcom and this page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 27 April 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.

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

Indeed. And this keeps coming up here. One week block for TTN...Rlevse

Yes, again a topic about TTN. I believe that this diff and this diff are violations of his probation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#TTN_restricted. I'm more concerned about the first diff. He either needs to be blocked or the arbcom remedy needs to be tweaked, as it says "television character... to be interpreted broadly" which I am lumping video games under due to their similarities and the fact that this problem was evident during the arbitration hearings. Since I took part in the debate I'm not taking any action myself. Wizardman 03:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I would support a block to enforce the imposed restriction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And this keeps coming up here. One week block for TTN. Also see [102]. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:49, 27 April 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.

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

Both sides need to stop the fingerpointing and move on. See my comment at the end....Rlevse

} ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) I feel that these comments made by ScienceApologist against me (and CorticoSpinal) violate the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist_restricted his ArbCom in that it represents an uncivil personal attack. ScienceApologist and I have had our differences in the past, but we have not crossed paths for at least a month now, making this attack on my character unprovoked (and in my opinion unwarranted). Specifically, I take offense to ScienceApologist describing me as a "Chiropractic true-believer" and my actions as "soapboxing" and my beliefs as "weird", "preposterous" and not "sane". Essentially, he has called me an insane chiropractic true-believer soapboxing preposterous beliefs. Not only is this uncivil, it is also a poor characterization of myself, my beliefs and my actions.

I took a gander at other edits/comments ScienceApologist has made just today and it appears that I am not the only editor he is currently disrespecting in this way. Please consider the following diffs here he also calls editors "anti scientific" and "braindead", etc.: [103][104][105][106][107] [108] And this is just from today and from a pretty cursory search. I just don't this is acceptable behavior from a recidivist such as ScienceApologist. I understand that he has strong opinions, but he definitely knows better. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• (sigh) When will ScienceApologist learn not to do that again? The arbCom restriction calls for blocks in case of any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, which is exactly what he did here. I know that in the past the community has been very accommodating and gave quite a bit of leeway to those keeping an eye on WP:FRINGE, but this type of recurring behavior is not helping that cause, and neither helps Wikipedia. I would support a block to enforce probation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I support a general block for this unconstructive comment, but then what? How many times have we blocked SA, and how much longer will the community tolerate AE being clogged with SA reports? He's a frequent case here -- hardly a week goes by without a mention. I'm not saying an outright topic ban or indef. block is acceptable for the comment made above, but do these short-term duration blocks really work? Are they effective? Do we need to take it a step further? Comments encouraged; I'm not taking any action on this specifically, and will defer to another. seicer | talk | contribs 23:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The solution in these cases, Seicer, is escalating blocks, one week, two weeks, one month, three months, and so on, as per the ArbCom ruling. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

True, but it hasn't been implemented. I'm not for sure if taking it back to ArbCom would help, or if it just really needs to be enforced. seicer | talk | contribs 03:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think some of those diffs are uncivil. However: the idea that escalating blocks can make an editor behave more civilly is questionable, at best, to begin with. In this particular case, this remedy has been further undermined by the throw-everything-against-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks approach of filing WP:AE reports at the drop of a hat. It's a boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon - these threads are often, but not always frivolous; it costs the filers nothing to put up one after another after another; and after a bunch of frivolous complaints are arbitrarily upheld or rejected the process loses a bit of respectability. This is a good case study of why "civility parole" is worse than useless. But that's just my view from the cheap seats. MastCell ^Talk 05:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell here. Well, actually, I disagree in that I don't find the diffs cited particularly uncivil. But I agree that "civility parole" is not solving any problems. By now, SA should have realized that his manner of making comments is unwise, given the big red target ArbCom has painted on his back, but is the substance of this comment really incorrect? At any rate, I would not support blocking SA for any of the diffs given, and I would be especially annoyed if SA got blocked at the behest of editors like Levine2112 and MartinPhi, who are textbook examples of tendentious editors. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please support you accusation against me with some diffs on my talk page or consider striking them out. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And mine. It's uncivil itself to make accusations you can't support. Either get the diffs, or you should take it back. I'm not going to put up with threats and insults from admins on this page anymore, like I did last time, when Thatcher wanted to block me for 30 days because he thought it was my fault the way SA behaves. Either get the diffs or take it back. I'd rather be blocked or whatever than put up with humiliation on this page ever again. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh give me a break, Levine. Your first diff is merely a statement of support for QuackGuru by SA, it's hardly anything bad. I've got to ask--isn't there something better to do with your time but engage in a regular posting to here about SA? I honestly quit reading what you say about SA and what he says about you 6 months ago. I only came here because I was reviewing something else, and noticed your posting. I don't like your POV, I don't agree with your POV, and i think your POV is off someplace far away from my education, but, in general, I don't think you should engage in these battles, because it makes you look bad. It's beneath you. Engage intellectually, not with this back and forth complaints.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin: Can you explain how that comment by ScienceApologist is about engaging intellectually? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Another edit conflict. I'm not talking about SA. I just get tired of the back and forth crap from SA and Levine. It makes for tendentious reading of anything they're both involved with. SA doesn't listen to me, so I figure I'd ask Levine to quit doing these postings. They really are beneath him. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Come on Jossi, that comment barely hits the civility detecto-meter. I disagree with SA (Levine has a purpose, he keeps the science writer intellectually honest, so I wouldn't fall in love with him but I'd certainly share a beer), but it's hardly bad. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

He's been insulting me all over the place, called me a Hypocrite in a headline a while back, and more stuff just today. Does that count, or is it my fault that he acts the way he does? I mean, it's always been my fault before, right? [109][110] [111] [112] In addition to the usual edit warring and disruption and POV pushing with terrible sources like blogs or the personal webspace of assistant professors [113] under the veil of PARITY. You excuse all this because he gives fringe POV pushers a hard time? Good for him, but please notice the other stuff. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any insults directed at you (or any other editor) in any of the diffs you have provided, Martin. For that matter, I've been looking at every diff provided in this thread, and I can see nothing that warrants action. Some of it is not phrased to please, certainly, but repeatedly picking nits in order to try to get rid of an editor you disagree with at all cost isn't what AE is for. — Coren ^(talk) 12:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have two comments.

First of all, why didn't Levine2112 inform me of this filing? Why didn't Levine2112 tell me that he considered something to be uncivil so I could refactor it?

Secondly, why is it that the two administrators chastising me here are so well known to me? Could the people who hate me not find an uninvolved administrator to agree with them? Because, you see, User:Seicer and User:Jossi and I go way back: Seicer has been so rude to me as to make me worry about his mental stability (not meant to be uncivil, I actually did worry about him when he flashed on me -- you can see the evidence of this in his RfA) and Jossi has, as of late, finally been called to task for his questionable involvement protecting fringe POV-pushing that I have been explicitly calling him out on for years. Yes, I'm in heavy disputes with both of these administrators to the point where I think neither of them should be administrators. Most of the other people who appear here to whine don't seem to be interested in actually improving the encyclopedia but are big fans of attacking me. What's perhaps most delicious is that I consider the majority of the actions and comments about/against me to be simply uncivil in themselves. Civility, as a concept, has been reinterpretted and retwisted by these people to be used as a bludgeon to a point that the entire policy looks almost worthless. We need to start getting rid of more people who flout the content policies of Wikipedia. We need to call these people out when they make trouble for the good editors (like User:QuackGuru, for example) and we need to start sending the message that POV-pushing is not going to be tolerated at Wikipedia. This is a hard thing to do because POV-pushing has be tolerated for so long. But it must be done. I'm trying to do this as civilly as possible, but if I mess up, I want people to tell me on my talkpage. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Mental instability"? Surely you can come up with something better than that reply, to someone who disagrees with your antics and disruptive editing. seicer | talk | contribs 15:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, I would be careful what you call "disruptive", seicer, since we do have a definition of it. I have my evidence and my concerns about you and I'm sorry if they seem very personal. But when someone flashes on me the way you did, I really don't know what else to think. The only other time I have ever had anyone do something like that was when User:Davkal went WP:MASTADON on my ass. I am concerned about you, seicer, and concerned that you cannot be trusted. Still, I hope that you are doing okay. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, to let people understand that I'm acting in good faith here, please see my talk page where I think civility discussions can be had civilly. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's make this easy. ScienceApologist, will you please strike/excise your uncivil comments from here now? Or do you stand by them? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There are obviously things in that message which are not particularly uncivil as others have pointed out. Tell me what part of that message you take to be as uncivil and why, and I will refactor it. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As I stated at the start of this thread: "Specifically, I take offense to ScienceApologist describing me as a "Chiropractic true-believer" and my actions as "soapboxing" and my beliefs as "weird", "preposterous" and not "sane". Essentially, he has called me an insane chiropractic true-believer soapboxing preposterous beliefs. Not only is this uncivil, it is also a poor characterization of myself, my beliefs and my actions." Do you require any further explanation on why this is uncivil? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If I had wanted to write "Levine2112 is an insane chiropractic true-believer soapboxing preposterous beliefs" I would have written that. I didn't write that on purpose because that would be uncivil. You are essentially saying is that what you take to be the "implication" of my writing is the same as if I had actually written it that way. This is essentially thought policing. What you are saying is that not only can I not express my opinions because you find them uncivil, if you decide to reorganize my words in a way that feels to you to be uncivil then I am essentially being uncivil. This I don't buy. I expressed my desire for you to be kicked-off Wikipedia. What I did say about you was: "User:Levine2112, in my estimation, deserve[s] to be kicked off Wikipedia immediately for using it as soapbox to promote [his] weird beliefs that manipulating spines is somehow the cure to all manner of maladies and that "BIG MEDICINE" is ruining the world." It is my estimation, but I don't think that this is so completely out-of-line. I was taking your lead in this regard. Note that you said in the same section, "It seems to me that QG exhibits two or three uncivil behavioral traits which either need improvement or other remedies need to be instituted." I have pointed out the two or three problematic behavioral traits you possess and suggested an institution of a specific remedy. I will admit that both your evaluation and my evaluation are personal. But uncivil? I suppose one might argue that presenting one's negative opinion of another is always uncivil. Fair enough. Then in my estimation, we either were both being uncivil or neither of us was being uncivil. Which do you choose? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't called QuackGuru "not sane", "weird" or a "true believer". I merely pointed out behavioral issues he has from my perspective.If you want to point out behavioral issues of mine, feel free to do so with civility. However, if you instead decide to barrage me with name-calling, don't be surprised if I (and so many others) find it to be so uncivil. I hope you recognize the difference between my post about QuackGuru's behavior and your post attacking my character. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You characterized QuackGuru directly as "snotty", "recidivist", and "completely unreasonable". So that's civil? I'm saying Levine that when anyone decides to go about the business of characterizing others in a negative fashion there is a great risk that the other party will take offense. So how can you possibly think that you were being civil in your characterization of QG but I was being uncivil in my characterization of you? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

First, QuackGuru is a recidivist. That's not an aspersion, but an accurate depiction based on his block log. Second, "snotty" refers to the remarks he makes in discussion and edit summaries. As I say, "A lot of times, he hides these snippy remarks in sarcasm or in edit summaries." Third, yes, saying that he is "completely unreasonable" may be borderline uncivil. However, it is clear in the next sentence that I am talking about his behavior and not his character. Finally, I was posting on AN/I in response to a thread specifically about QuackGuru and no one else. AN/I is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators. I feel his behavior does require such intervention. In AN/I, it says to please make your comments civil. I feel that your comments made specifically about me and my beliefs (rather than my behavior) violated this policy and thus was an infraction of the terms set forth by your ArbCom. Hence, my post here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Get real. You all know. I hate to do this, but I know you know, and I even have one diff to prove it [114] Don't be the first and third monkies, because they are not wise. You have completely abdicated your jobs as admins of wikipedia, to preserve the collegial editing environment of this place. Even with an ArbCom sanction behind you, which you should not need. It is absolutely, 100% disgusting, and you should be completely ashamed of yourselves. If you betray Wikipedia like this, why do you edit here at all? Or are you all afraid of Raul? Are you all afraid of JzG? There is a limit beyond which it is also unwise to refrain from speaking of negativity, and you have crossed it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was mad. I think there are admins here genuinely trying to actually do something. And I thank them for at least trying, even if it is months and years of extreme disruption late. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link for you. And it isn't like this is the only thing. [115] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the cat is out of the bag. I hope, Martin, that your outbursts and strange insistences (e.g. What is uncivil about the section you linked to? Is describing what I deem to be your documented POV-pushing as "hypocrisy" uncivil? Why?) are looked at carefully by those with passing interest in this proceeding. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Closing comment...enough already. This has descended into a finger-pointing complaint session by both sides. Before writing anything about someone else, ask "Would I want to be called that?". If not, don't write it. If it's borderline don't write it-this would stop all the attempts here where users throw up a report just to see what sticks; only truly legit reports would get filed if this were to occur. For example, maybe you wouldn't mind being called "braindead", but it would offend a lot of people. Also, you (you as in everyone, both sides) may consider your efforts on wiki non-POV, but others may not. If everyone involved here would take a step back, take a deep breath, and admit that the world of wiki is plenty big for everyone, things would be a lot calmer. These types of disputes start and go on and on when no one allows room for the other side. I see this not only in the pseudoscience area, but Mid-East, East Europe, Sri Lanka, etc disputes. On top of all this, there's about disagreement about the civility here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:04, 29 April 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.

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

Closing this with no action, as the RFCU was inconclusive. If there is disruption by new users bring it up at WP:AN/I ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• RodentofDeath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Arbitration
• HurryTaken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Luzonman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

User RodentofDeath, who is banned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RodentofDeath and has previous violations for breaching his ban has returned using a well laid out sockpuppet plan of attack using two sockpupputs.

Banned User RodentofDeath seems to have reapperared in breach of his ban once again, this time using various sockpuppets in a well laid out sockpuppet attatck against the same articles as before his ban, as well as his usual attacks and complaints against me. RodentofDeath has already twice been caught out breaching his ban before. He has reapperared using two sockpuppets. the first is user: HurryTaken. When one takes a look at the posting he first appears on March 8 with his first post in a deletion talk on an article that Rodent was strongely involved in. After a few minor posts, he then starts launching attacks against me in his usual style in the discussion area of another article Rodent was involved in.... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_trafficking_in_the_Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=208509828

His last Eleven posts have all been attacks against me. This sockpuppet has been editing the same articles RodentofDeath did in the exact same manner. Removing anything I have posted and anything referring to human traficking in Angeles, which has been the single purpose of the RodentofDeath account.—This is part of a comment by Susanbryce , which was interrupted by the following:

I have done no such a thing. I have made no changes to any article or removed any information. What I have done, however, is post to the talk page of the Human trafficking in the Philippines article. I also feel that I have raised legitimate questions about this article in a polite and respectful way. Here is the link to the history page of the Human trafficking in the Philippines article. As anyone can see, I have made no changes to it. I have also not attacked this editor in any way, shape or form. I ask that this editor please provide proof of the alleged attacks. I do not believe raising issues on talk pages and providing proof to backup my claims constitutes an "attack."

HurryTaken (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC) (Sorry, forgot to add)

It should be noted that the user has also been busy posting complaints againstr me to administrators, a usual tactic of RodentofDeath.... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=208504240 —This is part of a comment by Susanbryce , which was interrupted by the following:

This is correct. I did post the admin notice about possible copyright violations. One admin said they didn't think it was a violation. Another, without ruling, said they thought it was a possible violation. Why is it not legitimate to bring this up and discuss it?

HurryTaken (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC) (Sorry, forgot to add)

The other sockpuppet RodentofDeath is using in this plan is user : Luzonman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Luzonman

This sockpuppet was activated just several days after the other sockpuppet. It has also soon started editing the same articles RodentofDeath did in the exact same manner. Removing anything I have posted and anything referring to human traficking in Angeles, which has been the single purpose of the RodentofDeath account. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charities_in_the_Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=208497245

Also, both sockpuppets appear to be posting immediatly after each other. example: (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Human trafficking in the Philippines?; 12:07 . . (+322) . . HurryTaken (Talk | contribs) (?Line that makes no sense: added link to article and edit.)

(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Human trafficking in the Philippines?; 11:39 . . (+1,009) . . HurryTaken (Talk | contribs) (?Line that makes no sense)

(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Human trafficking in the Philippines?; 10:51 . . (+1,308) . . HurryTaken (Talk | contribs) (?Line that makes no sense)

(diff) (hist) . . Charities in the Philippines?; 10:23 . . (-172) . . Luzonman (Talk | contribs) (?ReachOut Foundation International: clarify charity's mission as per their website.)

(diff) (hist) . . Charities in the Philippines?; 10:17 . . (+123) . . Luzonman (Talk | contribs) (?SOS Children's Villages in the Philippines: clarify charity as in cited material.)

(diff) (hist) . . Charities in the Philippines?; 10:08 . . (-91) . . Luzonman (Talk | contribs) (?Sisters Plus: change to info stated in citation.)

(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Human trafficking in the Philippines?; 09:05 . . (+91) . . HurryTaken (Talk | contribs) (?Sex Tourism: Forgot to sign)

(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Human trafficking in the Philippines?; 09:04 . . (+1,973) . . HurryTaken (Talk | contribs)

It appears RodentofDeath has no regard for the ban or rules. He is engaging in any way possible to curcumvent that ban.Susanbryce (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is correct. I did post the admin notice about possible copyright violations. One admin said they didn't think it was a violation. Another, without ruling, said they thought it was a possible violation. Why is it not legitimate to bring this up and discuss it?

HurryTaken (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC) (Sorry, forgot to add)

This should have gone above so it is posted twice. I had an edit conflict so cut and paste. HurryTaken (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not Rodent of death which I am confident the admins will eventually find. Not everyone that points out problems and asks questions about an article this editor edits is a sockpuppet of Rodent of death. I do find it interesting that instead of addressing the concerns I have laid out (again in a polite and respectful manner) that this editor chooses to instead report anybody that raises such concerns as a possible sockpuppet violation. (As they did with Weighted Companion Cube when that editor posted an AfD on a article this editor mainly contributed to.) I would also note that blatant mis-information about me changing and editing articles as well. I think overall that says quite a bit. I will, however, admit to following the situation (as a lurker) between Rodent of Death and this editor for quite a long time. So I can write and do know quite a bit of the history between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HurryTaken (talk • contribs)

He has added text in the middle of my text, can this matter be tidied up? Once again, typical RodentofDeath behaviour as he has done this often before.Susanbryce (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We do not know (yet) if these are sockpuppets or not. You may want to consider to pursue dispute resolution: this is not the place to bring up content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no dispute yet to even discuss. The only thing I have done is post some questions and bring up some issues on a talk page. I have also brought up one of my concerns to the admin noticeboard about possible copyright violations. I have made no changes to any article that this editor is involved in editing. For that, I get the privilege of a checkuser and being accused of being a sockpuppet because of a history this editor has with a banned editor. HurryTaken (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just be patient until the RFCU is completed. If you are not a SP of a banned user, you do not have anything to worry about. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not worried. But what I do find interesting is that anyone that points out potential problems or has questions about articles this editor is involved in editing now automatically gets accused of being a SP of Rodent of death. HurryTaken (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Request for Checkuser filed: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#RodentoDeath ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur HurryTaken is RodentofDeath. This doesn't really need a checkuser to identify sockpuppetry, and in any case the banned user claims to "travel heavily and restricting IP accounts [isn't be worth the time and effort]"—This is part of a comment by edgarde , which was interrupted by the following:

Using this logic, one could argue that anyone that ever posts a question about or has an interest in, or even a different opinion in articles this editor edit edits is automatically an SP of Rodent of death. HurryTaken (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The complaint at WP:AN revives issues and language repeated from previous RodentofDeath problems. Rodent is applying lessons learned to grind his axe.

• Rodent's userpage was deleted (or just reverted, I forget) as WP:COPYVIO. Some of the explanation being used in the recent Admin complaint resembles instructions given to RodentofDeath at this time
• Asks that Bryce be "officially warned or reminded", language from RodentofDeath's arbitration decision.
• Attacks on PREDA, a habitual target of RodentofDeath
• Attacks on Susanbryce are another—This is part of a comment by edgarde , which was interrupted by the following:

Once again, I have attacked neither PREDA nor this editor. HurryTaken (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First action taken after creating account was to vote Delete in the AFD for Rodent's bête noire article Human trafficking in Angeles City. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed true and 100% accurate. As I admitted to previously, I have followed this situation between these two editors for quite some time. I was finally motivated to sign up for an account when I visited the Human trafficking in Angeles City and noticed the AfD HurryTaken (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess the other thing to point out is regarding the "lessons learned" criticism by Edgarde. I am definitely applying lessons learned knowing the history between the two. Rodent showed a complete and total inability to ever adapt or be respectful and polite despite repeated warnings. I am surprised (since you think I am him) that you think he has suddenly changed now. I have actually taken great pains to be as respectful, polite, and factually correct as possible. And I still point out I have not edited or changed any article this editor is involved in editing. I guess it does happen that Rodent and I may have some overlap in concerns or questions about certain articles. However, that does not necessarily mean that I am him either. And I actually have absolutely no axe to grind. I honestly believe some of the issues I have raised are 100% legitimate. Because these concerns mirror another user (a banned user) I am automatically him? HurryTaken (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Support the RFCU. Similar tactics and interests. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The RFCU was inconclusive. I would tend to assume good faith and assume these editors are not SPs of Rodent. What we need to monitor is disruption, by all parties to the dispute. I would suggest we keep these articles in our watchlists for a few weeks and encourage editos to follow dispute resolution if they get stuck. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

After reading Thatcher's comment at RfCU, I am at the moment unsure: should we err on the side of caution or not? What others think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Further investigation and comment [116] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am confident from HurryTaken's edit history that this editor is RodentofDeath; HurryTaken's comments on this page appear consistent with Rodent's behavior. I see no evidence in Luzonman's edit history that Luzonman is another sock, or is working in concert with RodentofDeath. Furthermore, Luzonman's edits appear consistent with editing in good faith. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Edgarde on this. HurryTaken's edit history is that of RodentofDeath. If we fail to take action against this sockpuppet, it will only make matters worse and embolden RodentofDeath to set up more sockpuppets. It may be that Luzonman is not a sock, but a genuine editor. But HurryTaken is RodentofDeath 100%.Susanbryce (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is already noted. Please allow uninvolved editors to take a look and comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Edgarde and Susanbryce, HurryTaken appears to RodentofDeath sock, while I'm not sure about Luzonman. I think we should indefinitely block HurryTaken, but not block Luzonman. PhilKnight (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a very interesting situation. Edg says that my comments on this page are consistent with Rodent. Are they? Our subject interest may be. But I would argue our actions and the way we handle bringing up difference of opinions are quite different. I also believe our writing styles and grammar are quite different. Am I faking this? Is this learned behavior? Again, our subject concerns are indeed similar. And the issues I raise may be issue he raised. But again, does that mean that I am him? Would it have been wiser for me to sign up for an account the entire time I sat on the sidelines and watched the previous situation unfold? Lar even noted the issues I have brought up have some merit in the RFCU. So I again submit that a portion of this seems to be to stifle or silence views, opinions, thoughts or contributions that don't fall in line with the editor that submitted this AE. Edg has long been a supporter of this editor. As Thatcher pointed out, I cannot prove my innocence based on the IP's I happen to come from. This is what it is and I cannot control it. Perhaps only established editors may contribute to and raise issues with these articles. My question then becomes how can I prove that I am not Rodent? In what ways can I convince those that would judge me and decide my fate here on Wikipedia that I am not him? I have my IP's which I cannot control. I have my written words and counterpoints that I would put forward to hopefully convince others that I am not him. But what else can I do? Can I make a pledge to only bring up issues and concerns I have on the talk pages and not edit articles this editor is involved in? (Which is actually what I intended to do all along.) I never planned on editing any articles this editor was involved in. I already firmly believe this editor has a strong emotional involvement and attachment to all the articles they edit here. Perhaps that is good and perhaps that is also a little bad. But it does bring up some legitimate POV concerns. Rather, my approach was to bring up issues and concerns and edit by consensus. On the [talk page] for the Human Trafficking in Philippines article I bring up what I consider to be a very legitimate point. According to a 2004 source in that article, 300,000 Japaneses sex tourists visit the Philippines each year. However, according to the Philippines own official numbers, 322,896 Japanese tourists visited the Philippines in 2003. That means that 93% of all Japanese visitors to the Philippines are sex tourists. I think that source and issue needs to be discussed because those two numbers contradict themselves severely. I believe a lot of other articles have significant issues as well. I would like the opportunity to bring up those issues for discussion. This is something Rodent never did. He name called, edit warred, attacked. This is something I have not done and would never do. Again, according to Edg lessons learned. But a lose-lose situation for me. I have an interest in a subject Rodent had. I signed up after Rodent was banned. I must be him. Again, how can I prove I am not? HurryTaken (talk) 03:34, 29 April 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.

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

Is this user a ban evading sock? Jehochman ^Talk 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All signs to point to yes. Please block and revert his edits and Talk Page vandalism on the Matt Sanchez article. --Tanstaffl (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You've only made a handful of edits on that account. Which is your main account? I think I'll wait for others to weigh in before doing anything. Jehochman ^Talk 14:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked for a checkuser last night. Came back unrelated. Must say I'm still uneasy. Be aware that in this particular dispute spoofing/joe jobbing has also been a significant possibility. Durova^Charge! 14:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going to roll back all of his edits, as some of them need to be discussed, and there is a lot of whitewashing/promotion there. Horologium (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe add Tanstaffl (talk • contribs • count) to that Checkuser request? Jehochman ^Talk 14:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And Eleemosynary and related socks. I requested Oversight last night on that. See my comment to the CU request. Durova^Charge! 15:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not averse to that idea, but do I simply edit the RFCU? And how do I justify checking Tanstaffl without running afoul of "no fishing"? Horologium (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User shows up at arbitration enforcement within their first five edits. User appears to be involved in spoofing or Joe jobbing. I think there are strong reasons for suspicion. It is not fishing when there are reason. Jehochman ^Talk 15:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Added Tanstaffl and Eleemosynary. This looks like it's going to be so much fun </sarcasm>. Horologium (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW (really short summary here because I've gotta run), during last month's AE thread User:Benjiboi and User:Eleemosynary got trolled on their talk pages by an AOL IP address. Then very shortly afterward they got friendly follow-ups by a sock that acted like User:Pwok. Looked like Matt had trolled them, only Matt was in France and couldn't have accessed AOL, and when I contacted him he didn't know anything about it (I still have the chat log; he acted genuinely surprised). So that looks like a joe job. Add to substantiate Matt's claim to having been in France at that time:

• He was interviewed on a French television program. The link was fresh the day the suspicions got raised.
• When he returned he uploaded pics of Normandy to Commons with metadata from the right time frame.
• (this one bites) I caught a French IP address trolling the same people not long afterward, and when I confronted Matt he promptly admitted that was indeed him.

So the AOL IP trolling from a month ago was probably Pwok and the French IP trolling from a month ago was definitely Matt. Is that murky enough for you? I had a hard talk with Matt afterward. He pledged to cease the trolling on-wiki. And although I'll be unavailable most of today I'm very interested in the results of the investigation and checkuser. Durova^Charge! 15:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute Durova's discussion, but do point out that AOL has (or at least, used to have) numbers that could be dialed into internationally. - Philippe 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Yep, they still do. See this for example: [117]. There's one for Paris. That's all I checked for in France. - Philippe 17:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm still skeptical. Sanchez has never been especially sophisticated about evading checkuser, while Pwok runs a dedicated anti-Sanchez website and has a long history of spoofing Sanchez around the Internet. It doesn't make sense that Sanchez would dial into AOL from France, successfully defend himself with evidence that he's in France, and afterward give away the show by trolling on a French IP address. If that were deliberate, wouldn't he have continued the AOL scheme or invented something else as clever, rather than giving himself away with a clumsy IP and admitting to it as soon as he was confronted? I wish the waters weren't so muddy, but I just won't rule anything out at this point. Durova^Charge! 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that it's Pwok or Sanchez. Simplest answer is that it's a friend of Sanchez who has taken an interest in helping him out. He or she certainly doesn't write like Matt. I don't know what policies would be in play for that. Cary Bass ^demandez 18:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Proxy editing for a banned user is a bannable offense, IIRC. And while the new editor is more civil, he demonstrates Sanchez's rather bombastic style; note especially the "recommendation" that Lawrence Cohen stop editing the article (at the bottom of Talk:Matt Sanchez#Reported service as an escort, and the changes he made are almost exactly the same as what Sanchez has been requesting. Cary, you have access to OTRS; perhaps you can verify some of the tickets with these changes, although I realize you will not be able to discuss their contents here. Horologium (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Brian Landeche, the namesake of this user, is the founder of NYC's gay bar Splash.[118] I rather doubt this bar owner is the same person as this user. Banjeboi 18:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that there's some unfair editing here. Matt sent me the OTRS, I spent a bit of time going through the issues and I made the changes. The sources seem kosher. Was I wrong? Brianlandeche (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I will assume good faith with you, but you should be very angry with Sanchez, who knows better than to have another user proxy-edit for him. Editing on behalf of banned users is prohibited, and usually results in a block for the editor involved. Considering your extremely brief edit history, you might qualify for some type of leniency; it will be up to a qualified administrator to make a decision. My recommendation would be to topic-ban you on all subjects relating to Matt Sanchez, including publications for which he has worked and anything relating to the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. I am going to revert all of your edits to Talk:Matt Sanchez (as set forth in the banning policy link above). Please do not reinsert them.Horologium (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A topic ban sounds reasonable to me. I'd only want to see a complete ban if the user defied the topic ban or was otherwise disruptive. Aleta ^Sing 01:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

For clarity could you also explain your user name? I found that coupled with your editing on behalf of Sanchez peculiar but will also await an explanation. Banjeboi 02:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a violation of the username policy. Durova^Charge! 06:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the violation of "username" policy? Why should I explain my name to anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianlandeche (talk • contribs) 07:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Username policy#Real names. Is Brian Landeche your real name? Aleta ^Sing 10:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Not my real name, nor is Aleta yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianlandeche (talk • contribs) 15:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Would someone else please look at this. I have again rolled back Brianlandeche's edits to Matt Sanchez. He denies editing by proxy, but has admitted above that Sanchez asked him to look at the article. Horologium and I could use some additional eyes here. Aleta ^Sing 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I just rolled back (for the third time) all of his edits to the talk page. He needs to be blocked; this is nothing more than disruptive editing. Horologium (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree a block seems reasonable, but as I'm involved, I'm not going to do it. The username may itself be hard blockable based upon the evidence by Benjiboi and Brianlandeche's statement that it is not his real name. Aleta ^Sing 16:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have indef blocked for proxy-editing for a banned/blocked user, with notification that they must send name verification per WP:U to be reinstated. I strongly suggest a checkuser as well, to determine whether this is clearly Bluemarine or not. - Philippe 16:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser was conducted, with negative results (although two socks of an indef-blocked user were flushed out). Horologium (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser was Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bluemarine; it's the most recent case. Horologium (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I re-read and was coming back to strike that statement when ya'll beat me to it. - Philippe 16:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• This editor has switched his username to Rushdittobot (talk · contribs), as per this diff. GRBerry 19:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Rushdittobot is now making changes to the article again. Please block him and/or full-prot the article. Horologium (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

John Reaves has indefinitely blocked Rushdittobot now. For the record, this user accuses me of either being a sockpuppet of or proxy editing for Pwok (neither of which, of course, is the case!). Aleta ^Sing 21:58, 29 April 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.