1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332

Edit this section for new requests

Mediation by Moreschi on Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles

In thread below, User:Moreschi kindly proposed to mediate and arbitrate in Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles. I think it's better if other contributors present their thoughts here in support or opposition of the proposal. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek's request, and Moreschi's offer (which several users have rejected, considering the existing mediation by Golbez) needs to be considered in its context. The relevant accusations and responses appear on the ANI page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Golbez_and_VartanM), and should be read by those considering Atabek's request. Basically, Golbez has been mediating on the Nagorno-Karabakh article. Following extremely disruptive edits and posts by Atabek, Golbez made it known that Atabek's inputs are not welcome, as they are provocative. As I and other users (such as Steelemate) have stated, fulfilling Atabek's request will be tantamount to rewarding a disruptive editor who tries to push away a mediator with whom he disagrees. Therefore, and given Golbez' current mediation, I and other users have respectfully rejected Moreschi's offer. We may welcome him in the future.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tigran, what makes you think that you and Steelmate are not disruptive while I am? Just the fact that Golbez and you are on one side of content dispute and I, along with few other contributors, am on the other does not suffice to call me disruptive. So assume good faith. Also, I believe this thread only asked for points explaining the rejection of Moreschi's kind offer (it's not an easy task to mediate and arbitrate this conflict) endorsed by at least 2 administrators at WP:ANI. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Golbez should step down as a mediator on NK and other Armenia - Azerbaijan related articles. So far not a single Azerbaijani contributor agreed to his mediation. I agree that Moreschi or any other third party contributor takes up the role of mediator. Grandmaster (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am dissatisfied with Golbez's mediation. He frequently resorts to spinosity and can get emotional - something mediators should avoid at all costs. I do not have anything against Moreschi taking over as a mediator. Parishan (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Parishan really dissatisfied of Golbez mediation? I wonder when was the last time he was engaged in any mediation to be dissatisfied? His participation on NK was basically reverting to Grandmasters position and sometimes providing a line or two, when he was criticized that he does not comment. Only after Atabek was singled out did he come to contribute there, and his arguments show that he doesn't even understand what the problem was really about.

This mentality of taking sides, Azerbaijani’s on one side and Armenians on the other isn’t helping anyone. If someone has the right to criticize Golbez's mediation, that person has to actually be engaged in the mediation process, those who were there when Francis and Golbez settled the issue before Atabek came and screwed it up. Coming here and claiming that his dissatisfied on a mediation that he wasn't even involved with besides a few comments which were already repeated by another contributor, doesn’t in any way weight in when commenting about Golbez's participation.

The point has been made, so why does Parishan continues pulling Golbez's foot? [1] I think administrators should first understand the rational of Atabek's illogical, irrational requests. It won't be the first nether the last time contributors like Atabek pushed members to the extreme. VartanM (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy with Golbez's mediation. He has solved long running issues and is very well familiar with the conflict and the history of the situation, his neutrality has only been challenged by pov pushers. Switching to another mediator will not be constructive.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 10:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I proposed. I'm also quite happy with Golbez's mediation. I'm more worried about everywhere else - the locus of dispute is not restricted to just this one article. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be happy with word "mediation" applied in Golbez case, if someone could explain what mediation actually means, other than what is defined in the relevant article: "Mediation, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), aims to assist two (or more) disputants in reaching an agreement.". It's clear from his edits and talk page comments, and the whole "raving maniacs" thing, that, with all due respect, he is more a disputant (within definition given above) than a mediator. Can we bring this to some formal board where a decision can be taken on who should actually mediate the articles? Because as of now, a group of users is refusing to contribute to the articles due to Golbez's activity, and when independent arbitrator like Moreschi offers his services, another group rejects for not quite detailed reasons but that it simply wants to continue "pushing POV". Atabek (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, my comment on Golbeze's page was simply the product of you calling him an pro-Armenian, interested only listening to the Armenians. Same applies to the bazaar comment. I was under the impression that if I really started pushing POV just the way you claim that I do. And if it were anywhere near the level of your own pushed POV maybe then, the mediators would be able to reach a consensus and not be called pro-Armenian. I quickly changed my mind about that theory, for the simple reason that the last thing this project needs is another destructive user. And by destructive, I mean someone who is able to halt any productive discussion [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] by driving the mediator to the point of snapping [12] and then reporting him to ANI [13]. VartanM (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I never rejected Moreschi's offer. The more neutral eyes we have on AA articles the better. Maybe then the compassions of NK to the Nazis will end. Also I didn't see you complaining about Golbez when he protected the Shushi article on a "right version". That wasn't really a pro-Armenian was it? VartanM (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you behave like a raving maniac, a moderator needs to point that out. He is doing you a favor, so you will step away and not sabotage the efforts of your fellow editors. Sometimes I get short breath just by reading your incessant tirades against your opponents. It's good if someone tells you to calm down and stop screaming.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of having any impartial mediator. So far, Golbez has not proven to be one. All of the above clearly indicate quite the opposite. I am for Moreschi's help. --Ehud (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned members have no say in this. You are banned so you should learn to face it. - Fedayee (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM

User:VartanM is a party to ArbCom [14] He has recently pushed the limit, by attacking a whole ethnicity again: [15]:

"Atabek its clear to me that Azeris have a bazar mentality in negotiations. As in you tart with your own ridiculously high price and wait for the Armenian to come up with its own ridiculously low price, go back and forth until a medium is reached then call it a deal. What has happened so far is that Azeris came up with the high price, but we the naive Armenians ask for the medium price right from the start, Azeris get confused and think that the medium is the low price and push for more."

I am not sure how long and how many times will this Arbitration Committee condone VartanM's attacks and the attack by TigranTheGreat like reported below on other contributors along ethnic lines and allow generalizations such as above. These contributors have been warned already at several instances.

No one likes being insulted or attacked for free contributions to free encyclopedia at own time and leisure. I hope Arbitration Committee will take this into consideration. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaps, attacking an ethnicity is only indirectly a violation of Wikipedia policy, but it's annoying and not something we want to see too much more of (Wikipedia ain't a soapbox either).

And, yes, Vartan, please don't do that. Nobody should. It's not much of a policy violation but it really does not help with the atmosphere around here, which is quite toxic enough as it is. There'd be no point browbeating an apology out of you, but please restrain from making such similar statements in the future. You're a classier sort of gentleman than that. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement is getting stupidly clogged up with your battles. At the moment it ain't all really working, I think you'll both agree. Perhaps we need a new approach. Here's an idea. I'll be full-time mediator and admin-enforcer to the Armenia-Azeri fights for a fortnight. If you accept, fine. If so, however, we're going to have work out a system whereby I get told where the latest fights are breaking out, because I haven't got every single Armenia-Azeri article listed. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, I think that would be great if you could dedicate some time to Azeri-Armenian articles. I will be more than glad to cooperate in your efforts. Keep me informed, and I can provide you with a list of all disputed articles.

But for this particular case, I also want to request that VartanM be demanded an apology for insulting an entire ethnicity. It's really inappropriate and every time he makes a violation and is given a green light, just because it's reported by opposite side, he continues similar attacks next time. Atabek (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to report this also, but VartanM engaged in another attack along ethnic and personal lines [16] against User:Ehud Lesar. Perhaps, he needs to be explained to calm down. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you need to calm down. Just today you have already alienated one admin (Golbez) with your hyperventilating style of argumentation. Going around and accusing all your opponents in "attacking along national lines" is disruptive and annoying. Vartan made a simple point--User Ehud's behavior strongly suggests that he is a sock of Adil, and as such, he is impersonating someone having a Jewish name. Unless Ehud wants to bring up the issue himself and subject himself to checkuser, you need to move on and stop your disruptive behavior. --TigranTheGreat (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tigran, if VartanM is not "attacking along national lines", why is User:Ehud Lesar's ethnic background is even a subject of discussion in Wikipedia? Does any Wikipedia rule proclaim that the user must state his ethnicity or be claimed as a sock otherwise? There is a simple method for proving a contributor is a sock of another - filing a checkuser. Is it really so much harder than assuming so much bad faith? Atabek (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs of VartanM cited by Atabek are not actionable. Thatcher131 02:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's more, a personal attack on Atabek, accusations of trolling, etc. Quote: Atabek is clearly trolling and baiting you to say things that you wouldn't normally say. My advise is to ignore him, but if it continues you can report him to the administrators at WP:ANI. [17] Also, constant accusations of User:Ehud Lesar being a sock of banned user Adil is another personal attack. VartanM knows very well that checkuser proved that Ehud and Adil are not related, but keeps attacking Ehud on any occasion. How many warnings can one person be given? I think it is time Vartan stops attacking other users, whom he happened to disagree with. Grandmaster (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, you're also a part of ArbCom and how many times you attacked Armenian side with the words like "separatists", "ethnic cleansings" etc (last time 2 days ago at Talk:Shusha)? and your last "editions" at Baku: after the Black January pogroms when the whole Armenian population fled the city its even very hard for you to see the word Armenian there in the article- when a prominent person from Baku was really an Armenian and in some cases was pressed to leave Baku like Armenian-Jewish Kasparov and his family? What about tolerance? Pls try to be more tolerant before asking about other users! Andranikpasha (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andranikpasha, since when the words "separatist" and "ethnic cleansing", with listed facts and references in historical debate, are considered an attack? And Kasparov is a prominent person, not because he is from Baku and not because he is Armenian-Jewish, but because he became a chess grandmaster. And by the way, before Black January pogroms, Kasparov received education in Baku, elevated and paid for all his chess tournaments up to championship by no one other than the leader of Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev. And by the way, when Armenians were leaving on ships or trains prior to Black January, Kasparov was chartering a comfortable plain for his family to leave to Moscow, safely, escorted from Baku airport. And by the way, if you look at my edits at Baku, I removed most Azerbaijani ethnic classification from prominent people listings as well. The article is about the city of Baku and prominent people from the city, not about their ethnic backgrounds. So WP:AGF. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher131, may I remind you about few comments for which I was blocked before, links listed here: [18], [19]. Perhaps, you could look at both links and since you don't find anything actionable in VartanM's "Azeris have a bazar mentality in negotiations" and "Atabek is clearly trolling and baiting you to say things that you wouldn't normally say", explain me what was "actionable" in what I said then? Atabek (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different admins have different standards. It is obvious in context that VartanM meant bazaar, not bizzare, and it was a comment on negotiation tactics. I could adopt the view that every talk page comment that said "the [blank] people all do this" is a personal attack and ban the whole damn lot of you. Certainly a more aggressive enforcement approach would fall on you as well. Thatcher131 14:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that I don't remember a single instance of any Azerbaijani user making generalizing comments about the Armenian people. I don't remember any Azerbaijani user ever saying "you Armenians are this and that". Previous report was dealing with comments of TigranTheGreat about the modern Azerbaijani people, to whom he referred as "so called Azerbaijanis" "with fictional ethnic identity", etc. It was not a matter of historical dispute, into which some users managed to change the discussion. If such remarks about the whole people are acceptable here, then everyone should feel free to make similar comments without the risk of being sanctioned. It is not even a matter of enforcing the arbcom decisions, it is more about the general atmosphere in talk pages, which keeps on deteriorating. I believe some sort of a general warning should be given to make users refrain from such inflammatory statements. Grandmaster (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Grandmaster. Such statements on a certain ethnicity indicate ethnic harted. I think VartanM should apologize for his unfair remarks about Azerbaijanis. Ethnic hatred should not be tolerated by admins in Wikipedia. Furthermore, Tigran should file a checkuser on my account along with people who think alike, if that makes him this worried that I am Adil Bagirov. So, Tigran and others, just stop talking and use your time to file a checkuser instead. Or, is it better for you that I am not checked so that you keep repeating the same melody over and over? I think the latter option suits your interests well and that's why you're inactive. --Ehud (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TigranTheGreat

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

User:TigranTheGreat, a party to two ArbCom cases [20], [21], has been placed under supervised editing per most recent ArbCom. He has recently violated the remedy [22] by editing the talk page of Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907 in an offensive manner directed:

a) against a nationality - [23] with remarks like: "...Italians and Germans. These two nationalities were well developed ethnic groups..." and "The loss of Nagorno-Karabakh alone presents a very real fear to so called "Azerbaijanis" about losing their own identity"
b) against another contributor - [24].

Thanks. Atabek (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of national identity is fascinating but I don't see anything that is actionable under the terms of the editing restriction. We need to understand that what is "offensive" is often judged from different points of view, but ultimately some sort of "Average person" standard needs to apply. As an interested but uninvolved bystander, I don't find anything offensive in quoting a scholar as saying the Azeri people have a weak sense of national identity, or quoting a historian saying that the Azeri identity is a product of 20th century politics, although I acknowledge those views might anger or offend some Azeris. If we were to take action against every comment that could be interpreted as offensive by the most sensitive editor, all of you would have been banned long ago. Perhaps there is something more serious that I have missed in the above, very lengthy discussion. If so, please make a new, brief report with clear and obvious diffs of the problem. Thank you. Thatcher131 01:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Asgardian

I think User: Asgardian violated his restriction on the Vision (Marvel Comics) article (making two reverts in four days) and on the Quicksilver (comics) article. --DrBat (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The user above, however, did make several blind reverts. I have not responded with still another revert, as this will only cause an edit war. Rather, I will explain the changes on his Talk Page and the relevant character Talk page. Thank you.

Asgardian (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin response In the future please provide diffs of the alleged reversions so we don't have to hunt them down. On Vision (Marvel Comics), this and this are both reversions in the broad sense of the term, since they discard the majority of changes introduced by other editors and revert to a version that is substantially identical to the previous version in the diff. I'm not finding any reversions (as distinguished from normal collaborative editing) in the Quicksilver article. Many people assume that editors on restriction are allowed to edit an article only once a week, this is not true. A reversion is distinguished from an edit by discarding most or all of the intervening contributions without making an attempt to edit collaboratively. The edits I cite on the Vision article are reversions and this is a violation. Since this is the first reported violation I will issue a warning only, but it will be logged. Thatcher131 03:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosencomet and Starwood related articles

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

The caution is not enforceable. Make a new request to ArbCom to create an enforceable remedy. Thatcher131 02:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rosencomet has been violating the terms of the Starwood Arbitration. The Starwood Arbitration had this proposed remedy: "Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages."

This has actually been an ongoing problem since the end of the arbitration in March 2007. The central articles affected are:

Starwood Festival
Association for Consciousness Exploration
Winterstar Symposium
Jeff Rosenbaum Autobiography concerns, see here.

Rosencomet has used the phrase "as executive director of ACE" so he has a conflict of interest in editing all three of the non-autobio articles.

Winterstar Symposium: A section is marked with a laundry list tag [34]. Rosencomet reverts without addressing the issue.[35] On the talk page, Rosencomet is combatative and aggressively argumentative in his approach to the discussion. [36] (This diff covers several consecutive edits by Rosencomet)

Starwood Festival: When asked for inline citations and integration of references into the body of the article [37], Rosencomet responds by adding a link to the Starwood website [38] and removes the citation needed tag.[39] Rosencomet's response on the talk page is again aggressively combatative [40] I'd also like to note that Rosencomet has apparently been using Google's book search to add references to the article. In other words, if a book mentions Starwood in passing, he will put it in the references section. Many of these are clearly trivial mentions and add nothing of substance to the references beyond increasing the numbers. I believe this kind of empty bloating of references should be avoided in favour of refs primarily about the subject of the article.

Jeff Rosenbaum: WP:COI issues are blatantly apparent here since, as noted above, Rosencomet is undoubtedly Mr. Rosenbaum. A look at the history will show he has extensively edited this page. Most recently is this series of edits [41]. Note, among other problems, his insertion of the Starwood website as a reference for information. On the talk page, Rosencomet refers to himself as "the subject" in an attempt to deflect the COI issues. [42]

All of this shows that, despite Arbcom admonitions, he still behaves as if WP core policies are only a matter of opinion and the normal Wikipedia rules don't apply to him. Over a year after these issues were brought to his attention in the strongest possible way and he still responds with hostility when policies are pointed out to him. (I also believe he is still creating articles that astroturf for his festivals and group but this was not specifically ruled on in the Arbcom case.)

I tried to be brief with this but have obviously failed. Because I was the person who brought the arbitration against Rosencomet, I feel my judgment and ability to enforce the arbcom decision is limited. Even bringing the issue here caused me some hesitation but I think my concerns stand independent of my involvement in the Arbcom case. Pigman☿ 00:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, he's getting aggressive. I checked in on some of the articles that were mentioned in the Arb, and his contribs, and attempted to address some of the problems. This is some of what Rosencomet (talk · contribs) did in response: Reversions, insertions of more rosencomet.com links, insertions in his autobio of links to forum posts he's made (calling them "articles") and reverting when they are removed, screaming edit summaries, accusations of stalking and attempts to find another contributor to edit on his behalf: [43] [44] [45] Looking further back, we also see that since the Arbitration he has continued to add mentions of himself and his products (usually tapes he sells) to articles: [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]. I think it is clear that, even after having it explained to him by Arbcom and numerous editors, Rosencomet does not seem to think that WP guidelines apply to him, or to the articles he works on (and he still seems to have trouble telling the difference between the two). After all this time on WP, he still responds to the efforts of other editors to apply basic standards to these articles as some sort of personal attack. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to look into Pigman (talk · contribs)'s mention of Rosencomet (talk · contribs), continuing to create "articles that astroturf for his festivals and group." On his user page, Rosencomet has recently added a list of articles he's created, and which he appears to still be editing. Looking through them I found that Matthew Abelson, Armor & Sturtevant, John Bassette, Steve Blamires, Brushwood Folklore Center, Baba Raul Canizares, Miriam Chamani, Ian Corrigan, Phyllis Curott, Jim Donovan (musician), Sally Eaton, Robert Lee "Skip" Ellison, Philip H. Farber, LaSara FireFox, Laurence Galian, Victoria Ganger, Jesse Wolf Hardin, George R. Harker, Richard Kaczynski, Lehto and Wright, List of Neo-Pagan festivals and events, Louis Martinie', Patricia Monaghan, Christopher Moore (author), M. Macha Nightmare, Owain Phyfe, Lauren Raine, Nicki Scully, Chas Smith, Patricia Telesco, Trance Mission, and Harvey Wasserman all include links to Starwood or Winterstar (the festivals Rosencomet runs), sometimes to his autobio, and usually also to rosencomet.com (which is often the only source cited in these generally unsourced articles). While ArbCom did not rule on the appropriateness of the links, those familiar with the festival, the artists, and the Neopagan milieu did, in this RfC: Talk:Starwood Festival#Request for Comment: Inserting references to Starwood Festival in articles. Of the editors weighing in, the consensus was clearly that the internal and external links to Starwood, Winterstar, and other projects run by Jeff Rosenbaum were "a clear case of linkspam to a commercial site, and that the internal linkspam is as inappropriate as the external linkspam." Looking back over it, it looks like while a couple people were somewhat neutral, the only voice of clear support for Rosencomet's extensive linking to his projects belonged to the Ekajati/999/Hanuman Das/etc sock drawer, now indef-blocked by Arbcom. I think we have a definite problem here. And note, I did not go through his complete contribs, which, skimming the list, I know also includes articles with Starwood links. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this was precisely the problem that got him to arbitration in the first place, I don't see how we can overlook it. Perhaps we need to go back to ArbCom and ask for a restriction, since his entire purpose for being on Wikipedia appears to be boosting his own interests. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration case was really about disruption and sockpuppetry on the part of a supporter and an opponent of Rosencomet. Rosencomet's own behavior (at the time) was mostly reasonable. Of course, his editing often involves conflicts of interest, but COI editing is not prohibited; editors are warned that COI editing can lead to bad behavior and are advised to listen to the advice of more experienced wikipedians on things like notability, linkspam, and the like. The question I have is, how has Rosencomet behaved when confronted with these points (and hopefully by editors other than Kathryn and Pigman, who have past issues with him)? Does he react abusively to removal of links or deletion nominations? has he attacked other editors who have pointed out problems with his edits? If this is largely a content dispute over the notability of topics he edits that he has an interest in, it seems that the normal content processes should be followed (Third opinion, request for comment, mediation) and only approach arbitration if his behavior in defense of his edits crosses the usual boundaries (incivility, edit warring, etc). Thatcher131 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, I take your point about the central issues of the arb case. However I note that, except for three very minor edits by others, Rosencomet has been the sole maintainer of the Starwood Festival article since the end of the Arbcom case. I think this is in no small part because people are adverse to enter the situation. The article has a number of obvious problems, from OR to "references" that merely mention Starwood briefly to rather blatant POV/puffery. It irks me to see obvious problems and feel I can't edit the article without being accused of attacking Rosencomet and/or Starwood. Similarly, the Jeff Rosenbaum article is almost entirely maintained by Rosencomet, the subject of the article. I believe much of the reason he has not had conflicts is because he is mostly editing in Wikipedia backwaters, where his COI editing passes without notice. If you think that the situation warrants only normal editing and talk page exchanges unless or until a dispute comes up, I'm willing to do that.

On his civility, if you look at one of the diffs Kathryn provided above, Rosencomet said Kathryn was "stalking" him. [51] Near the end he says "...nor have I EVER touched anything you have written..." which shows he still has not progressed beyond an attitude of ownership of one's contributions to Wikipedia. At the end, he says "Please AGF, and find something better to do than to stalk my work and place unconstructive tags." I may be wrong but I don't think Kathryn has been editing any of "his" articles since the arbitration until these very recent few edits. Hardly "stalking" behaviour. Still, perhaps it was premature to bring this here. Anyway, thank you for your input. It does help to gain some perspective. Cheers, Pigman☿ 20:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am virtually the sole editor of Coal Torpedo and Thomas Edgeworth Courtenay but that does not mean I am abusive toward other people who try to edit, it means no one else cares much. The scenario that I am concerned with is that (a) you or Kathryn or some other editor has concerns about the article and edits it to address those concerns, (b) Rosencomet disputes the edits, (c) discussion on the talk page, (d) request for comment or third opinion, (e) Rosencomet edit wars to maintain his version despite consensus of multiple outside editors and/or become uncivil and abusive in defending his preferred version. If you and Kathryn seem to be the only other people interested in Starwood and Rosenbaum, try to engage Rosencomet in discussion on the talk page about your concerns and proposed changes, and use the third opinion or request for comment processes to bring in outside views, and see how it goes from there. Thatcher131 20:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: sole editorship: precisely. Good faith editing of articles should always be welcomed. Many Wikipedians shepherd and watch articles we are personally interested in but that doesn't mean we attack or are abusive to others who attempt to improve the articles in some way. I think part of the reason I brought this issue here was I envisioned exactly the scenario you outlined above. My frustration is that these articles have all been through this exact process already leading up to the arbitration. I find it rather a pain to think it needs to be repeated since I see little change in Rosencomet's attitude toward "his" articles. It's clear (to me at least) he sees any substantive change or tags to improve certain sections or aspects of the articles as attacks rather than a desire to improve them. I also believe other editors observe how pugnaciously he responds and they back away slowly from the situation as more trouble than it's worth. As I've said in the past, these are only event and organization articles, not issues around Israel-Palestine or abortion; it shouldn't be a massive struggle simply to shape them into good articles with solid sources. Cheers, Pigman☿ 22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the diffs above there do appear to be problems with reference padding, self-sourcing, and adding links to lecture taps published by his own organization, as well as a failure to assume good faith on the part of his fellow editors (although he has not really been uncivil as such things go; I've seen much worse). As the prior decision was a non-binding "caution", you will need to bring this to the committee again. I suggest beginning with a user conduct RFC, discussing the issues of reference padding, self-sourcing, and adding links to tapes that he may profit from, as the most pressing of the current issues. Let it run for a couple of weeks and try to get more outside input, then once the new members of the Arbitration committee have been installed, you can try bringing a case if the RFC has not been satisfactory. (With the elections over but the new members not appointed, and no prior RFC in place, I do not think a case would be accepted at this time.) Thatcher131 04:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen worse, too, but I don't think calling another editor a "stalker" for daring to edit "his" articles is particularly civil. As for RfCs, the issues are essentially the same (or worse) as when these two were done. I referred to the second one above (Talk:Starwood Festival#Request for Comment: Inserting references to Starwood Festival in articles) The first one, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse#Outside view) showed even stronger consensus that he is astroturfing and spamming for his projects. The outside statement in particular, endorsed by fourteen established editors, seven of whom are admins, stated: "2. All the articles in question have links to Starwood Festival and its website. Many of these links fall outside of WP:NPOV Undue Weight, overstating the importance of a performer apperance at the starwood festival. As such these links can be considered a case of WP:SPAM. The links have all been added by User:Rosencomet who is connect to the event so WP:VAIN also applies." ^{RfC outside view, point #2} I don't think it gets much clearer than that.

I'd also note that, while there is no evidence to support sockpuppetry on the part of Rosencomet himself, suddenly today after Rosencomet reverted Guy's removal of uncited lists,[52] and I reinstated Guy's edit, another Ekajati sock showed up to start reverting. [53] Rosencomet has never stopped defending the sockdrawer's actions, and I find it interesting that shortly after he started posting on talk pages calling me a stalker for editing an article in a normal manner, and suggesting Guy was "just looking for fights" and should also stay a away from the articles,[54] the sockpuppets returned. Personally, I don't think it's a coincidence.

In this diff, Rosencomet states his understanding of the ArbCom decision: "This is obviously not about the data, but a problem she has with me about such issues as POV and COI, issues that were put to bed long ago (I thought) with the assurance that I was free to edit as long as I did not do so "aggressivly" or edit war".[55] So, it looks to me like he truly believes the COI issues do not apply to him as long as he doesn't violate 3RR. Or something. I have to wonder if he's ever read any of the policies we have repeatedly pointed out to him. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. The caution from the previous case is unenforceable. Thatcher131 05:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well. I see your point. The caution is relatively nonspecific and doesn't provide penalties. However, I admit disappointment that you're essentially saying the Arbitration was pointless in the end. Sadly, Pigman☿ 06:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can not find any User conduct requests for comment. The difference between an article RFC and a user RFC is that an article RFC is used to attract wider attention to a contentious issue, while a User conduct RFC is used to attract wider attention to a users' behavior. Giving several examples of problematic behavior as noted here, and asking for comments from uninvolved editors, may be able to demonstrate to Rosencomet how his editing is sometimes not acceptable; alternatively it may demonstrate to Arbcom that his conduct as a use falls outside Wikipedia norms. Thatcher131 19:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article RfCs all focused on Rosencomet's self-promotion toa large extent; it may be moot since he's admitted allowing others to use his account. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very specific COI violations

I filed a slightly different version of the paragraph below over on WP:COI/N here when it seemed unlikely that this discussion would bear fruit. User:MER-C suggested keeping discussion together here so I'm reposting it. Please look at the links, particularly the two showing identical pictures of Jeff Rosenbaum, who personally sells items from the Starwood Store over the phone. This is a succinct and clear statement on the COI issues. There are several new links but I apologize in advance for any redundancies to the discussion here.

Jeff Rosenbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Association for Consciousness Exploration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Starwood Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WinterStar Symposium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It is reasonably certain that Rosencomet (talk · contribs) is Jeff Rosenbaum (see Arbcom finding here), the Executive Director of the Association for Consciousness Exploration, LLC (ACE). Despite an Arbcom caution (here), he has extensively edited these articles (please see the histories of the articles.) I interpret these extensive revisions as "aggressive" editing as well as an autobio violation on the Jeff Rosenbaum article. Additionally, his editing and lack of posting of a COI notice on his user page mean that many more articles besides these four are affected. See this version of his userpage for a sizable (but possibly incomplete) listing. If any doubt exists about his COI, see this book excerpt with Mr. Rosenbaum's photo and compare it to this ACE CyberCatalog page. Note the caption saying Mr. Rosenbaum sells the items personally. (As an aside, I found the Rosencomet Classic Thong offered on Starwood's Cafe Press store to be very attractive. And comfortable too.) As to why this hasn't been brought here before: This noticeboard (WP:COI/N) didn't exist when I first brought the Arbcom case against Rosencomet in Dec. 2006 and I was burned out in the aftermath of the relatively toothless "caution" of Rosencomet by Arbcom in March, 2007. These issues have been discussed with Rosencomet extensively over the last 16 months. Read his talk page for a sampling of efforts by a large number of Wikipedians. Cheers, Pigman☿ 18:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC) (Addendum: I've just noticed Rosencomet's talk page has been archived so that is a better example of discussions with him. Pigman☿ 19:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

Ferrylodge

The applicable case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge and R2.1. The exact ruling is a little confusing, which resulted in a request for clarification. The ruling says that Ferrylodge is "restricted", but the clarification said that FL "is not under any general ban". This has caused FL to start editing at the topics mentioned in the ArbCom remedies (abortion and pregnancy). I'm still a little confused on the nature of the ArbCom ruling, but from what I gather, they basically said "FL is unblocked, and unrestricted in his editing, but if he is disruptive on two specific topics (interpreted broadly) uninvolved admins have the added ability to impose an article ban on FL, on an article by article, case by case level."

Moving on, since FL has been back, he has, to my knowledge, been warned twice about civility. Once by User:The Evil Spartan 23:28, 1 December 2007, and once by User:Cool Hand Luke 01:33, 17 December 2007. Needless to say, someone coming out of a community ban should not need to be warned about civility. Not once, and definitely not twice.

Next, FL has begun editing topics related to abortion, specifically Roe v. Wade and Abortion. I am currently in a content dispute with FL, and I am here to ask an uninvolved admin to ban him from the article, per the ArbCom ruling. I urge you to please read the talk page starting from Talk:Roe v. Wade#Context for poll results. I do not believe FL can discuss content, not editors. He has made this discussion personal multiple times. In fact, he posted a personal message to me on the page (see the "Editorializing" heading), which I kindly asked him to move to my talk page (which he refused). I was trying hard to work with FL, really hard. But it is incredibly hard to stay on topic and stick to content, when the other party is making things personal, on an uncivil level. I've reached the point where I do not feel I can discuss this further with FL, and I realized I shouldn't even be in this situation. FL has been uncivil in this talk page discussion. He has been warned twice for civility issues since he has come back. The article in question is on a topic covered by the ArbCom enforcement. So I ask an uninvolved admin to review this case and possibly ban him from Roe v. Wade.

Severa has shown similar concerns that an uninvolved admin may want to considered as well, see this. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informational: Applicable text of the remedy reads "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing."

Question: Is the editing Ferrylodge has done on these topics "inappropriate"? I feel this needs to be shown before any block/article ban takes place. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I was not informed about this request by Andrew c (or about Severa's comment to which he links), I hope it won't be inappropriate to respond here briefly.

I hope that people reviewing this matter will keep in mind the following recent comment by SandyGeorgia:

"Considering how extremely helpful, patient and civil I found Ferrylodge to be on restoring Roe v. Wade to featured status, and that I couldn't decipher his POV during that FAR, I hope post-ArbCom hounding of Ferrylodge doesn't become an issue."

Andrew c is correct that we are having a disagreement at a talk page. However, the ArbCom decision involves edits to articles rather than talk pages: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." Nor does it does not involve the articles where Evil Spartan and Luke interacted with me.

I hope admins and others will feel free to visit the Roe v. Wade talk page that Andrew c mentions, ~~not to decide whether I should be banned (the ArbCom decision does not authorize banning for talk page comments), but merely~~ to see whether I was uncivil as Andrew c contends. I did not accuse him of "bias," or of "editorializing," or of trying to "jab" me, or of trying to insert "personal opinion" into the article. Those were things he said to me. All I did was deny it.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "interpreted broadly" clause might mean that talk pages are indeed included. But the fact remains that it needs to be shown that you are editing inappropriately. --Ali'i 19:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's possible, though that isn't how I read the decision. If the decision does include talk pages as well as articles, then I'd like some clarification on that point. In any event, I was not disruptively editing the talk page in question. Incidentally, although I don't think the article where Luke and I interacted is at all relevant here, he also commended me for my work there.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Not going to comment on Ferrylodge's recent conduct on the two articles in question, but just noting that part of the reason why Ferrylodge was brought to CSN was because of his conduct on talk pages and it seems that is what is in question here, not his actual article editing. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment Bobblehead. The CSN has been abolished, and the complete ban on me that the CSN imposed has been overturned. So, why is the CSN relevant here? Also, KillerChihuahua brought her complaint at the CSN for alleged edit-warring in articles, not in talk pages.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Sorry, should have been clearer and expanded my wording to include the evidence in arbcom. I mentioned CSN because that was the initial place that your conduct was brought up in a manner that requested some sort of "punishment". It should also be pointed out that the evidence that the arbcom chose to use in their Finding of Fact about you having a history of disruptive editing in pregnancy and abortion articles, but productive editing in other areas[56] includes your conduct on the talk pages.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the findings of fact nor the decision mentioned anything about talk pages.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geez... I've gone ahead and sought more clarification from the arbitration committee. Drop this until we hear back? --Ali'i 20:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question posed by Ali'i: Yes. On the article Roe v. Wade, Ferrylodge inserted commentary on a particular opinion poll,[57] which he had previously done on several abortion-related articles beginning in January 2007.[58][59][60][61][62] The recent pursuit of a fetal illustration at Talk:Abortion,[63] while not an example of an edit made to an article itself, shows further that Ferrylodge has not let old matters drop with regard to articles on abortion. Ferrylodge added just such an image to the article Abortion in September,[64] resulting in a lot of complication, as documented here. The point is that there are a 2 million articles to edit on Wikipedia and just as many edits which could be pursued on those articles related to pregnancy and abortion. But, even after the ArbCom decision, Ferrylodge is still opting to concentrate on the same narrow range of things as before (the Harris poll on Roe and fetus pictures). It's this fact which I consider worthy of examination. -Severa (!!!) 20:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Severa is citing only two recent diffs, and all the others are from before the ArbCom proceedings. This is the first of those two recent diffs, in which I updated poll results at the Roe v. Wade article (presumably Severa does not object to that updating), and in which I mentioned that "the poll question quoted above asked about only 'part' of the decision." That statement is factually correct, and is fully supported by the text of the poll question itself. Nevertheless, Andrew c objected to that factual statement, and the matter is currently under discussion at the Roe v. Wade talk page. I did not reinsert that factual statement after Andrew c removed it. Severa's second diff is here. This is what I said at the abortion talk page, that Severa finds so offensive:

"I hope that some thought will be given to including a non-shock image of a typical fetus before it is aborted, so that the image is not a shock image. Susan Faludi, in her book 'The Undeclared War Against American Women' (1991) said: 'The antiabortion iconography in the last decade featured the fetus but never the mother.' In contrast, the present article now features iconography of the mother but not of the fetus, and I think this situation needs some balancing."

Frankly, I do not understand how there is anything inappropriate about what I said at the abortion talk page. Am I to understand that it is forbidden for me to even mention that pictures of a fetus exist?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I found anything "offensive" about the particularities of what you had said so please refrain from reading that into my comment. What I do find questionable is that you seem to have returned to abortion-related articles just to pick up on old battles instead of letting sleeping dogs lie. And, while we're on the topic, was it really necessary to give this reply to Y? Sometimes the best response is none. -Severa (!!!) 21:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Severa, if you did not find my edits to be offensive or disruptive, then please let's discuss them elsewhere. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to my request that you not present my words out of context is to do so to an even greater degree. Above, you stated, "This is what I said at the abortion talk page, that Severa finds so offensive," and then provided a quotation. I responded to clarify that I found nothing "offensive" about what you'd said specifically — I don't agree with the fetus picture suggestion, but that doesn't mean I'm offended by it. What I do object to is the apparent effort to reopen disputes over the Harris poll and fetus pictures months after they've closed. I believe that I was quite clear about the nature my objection in the post above so I am not sure from where you have inferred that I "d[o] not find [your] edits to be...disruptive." -Severa (!!!) 21:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Severa, if you found my comment to be disruptive but not offensive, then that's fine. I'm not sure I understand the distinction, but let's not quibble. All I did was mention the issue of photos to some new editors at the abortion article who have never even thought about it before. I didn't argue back and forth, and I didn't edit the abortion article. If you think it's disruptive for me to not let sleeping dogs lie, do you also think it might possibly be disruptive for you to not relent in your criticism of me?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification has been provided that article talk pages are covered by the ArbCom decision in my case, although I may be given "more freedom on talk pages." In any event, as explained above, I was not being disruptive at the talk page in question.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has now become clear that Ferrylodge is editing the Roe v. Wade article in an attitude that is having a derogatory and negative effect on the article, and by extension Wikipedia as a whole. In my capacity as a neutral, uninvolved administrator, and in accordance with the remedy outlined here, I instigate a ban on Ferrylodge from that article for disruptive editing: he simply is harming this article. Anthøny 21:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, your notice says:

"The user specified is on probation and has edited this article inappropriately. The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. This ban must be registered on the administrators noticeboard. If you disagree with this ban, please discuss it with the administrator who imposed it or on the noticeboard. At the end of the ban, anyone may remove this notice."

May I ask what article edit I made that you deem inappropriate? Was it an article edit or a talk page edit? This information would certainly help me to improve. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main motivation was the entire atmosphere around your editing, over both a recent and long period of time. Despite an Arbitration Committee ruling against you, you seem to have proceeded in pretty much the same manner. This edit was in some ways the final straw: you are editing in a negative manner, and I cannot stand by and allow it to happen any more. Ferrylodge, please edit constructively: further patience is unlikely to be sent your way, if this poor standard of editing continues. Anthøny 22:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, thanks for your explanation. I assume that the ArbCom did not want me banned from any article based on activities predating the ArbCom decision, so I appreciate your providing me with an example of a recent article edit. May I ask, what is it about this edit that you find objectionable? Was it the fact that I updated out-of-date poll results? Or was it the fact that I quoted from the poll question? Do you realize that, after I quoted from the poll question, and after that quote was deleted, I did not attempt to reinsert it? There was no edit-warring whatsoever.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Request for clarification... how exactly is that edit you provided "editing in a negative manner"? Ferrylodge was trying to update the polls, and clarify the context. How is that negative? You'll have to forgive me if I miss how it is. Mahalo, AGK. --Ali'i 22:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(e.c. mark two) First off, I must admit I'm impressed by the way you are conducting yourself around this: most users who come out of AC cases in this way are rather difficult to deal with. Secondly, I chose that edit as an example: having looked through recent contributions by Ferrylodge in that area, it was and is clear to me that Ferrylodge is not editing there in a positive manner, hence my action. Ferrylodge, are you absolutely positive you can edit constructively in that area? Anthøny 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, I promise I'll do my best. I've only tried to make the article better. It's a contentious topic, so there are bound to be disgreements at the talk page, but I promise I'll not make unconstructive edits to the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense AGK, but if you look at the history of Roe v. Wade, you'd see that Ferrylodge has probably done more to help the article than any other one person. His editing has hardly been "derogatory and negative". Even since his arbitration committee decision, he has contributed positively. I request that you look at the history page of Roe v. Wade and look at more edits that haven't been brought up here. I think Ferrylodge has done exceptional work in this area, and is in the midst of an ever-lasting content dispute (it's a bout abortion... of course there is going to be debate). Mahalo. --Ali'i 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I reviewed the history, I picked up exactly the opposite. However, I have been impressed by FL's handling of the situation, so I've reversed the ban for the moment. Having said that, Ferrylodge, I would like to discuss the matter with you, some time; I'm going off-line in a moment, but I'll try and catch up with you tomorrow (talk page, email or IRC?) Anthøny 22:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anthony. I've never used IRC, and don't know how to. Email would be good.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have no prior involvement in this case whatsoever, so I'm neutral, but it seems to me that Ferrylodge's continued reinserting of the same material (the poll for example) is a continuation of prior behavior. But it's also true that this Roe v. Wade article is always a hot one. As FL and AGK are going to discuss it, let's hope something works out. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse, I'll do my best to minimize controversy here, and to work with Anthony, and to make only constructive edits. Regarding "the poll" that you mention, there are two polls involved here: a Harris poll that has been in the article for a very long time and that I have therefore not had any occasion to reinsert, and also an LA Times poll that was included during the featured article review but subsequently removed. At the talk page, I did urge reinsertion of the LA Times poll, but I never actually reinserted it into the article because there was no consensus. The reason why I urged reinsertion is because the article right now has Harris poll results that cover the first trimester, but the article omits poll results for the second trimester, which is not a balanced presentation (the LA Times poll covered the second trimester). Anyway, I hope that kind of explains the polls. I will not reinsert that stuff without consensus to do so. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[redact my comment. reposted at User_talk:Andrew_c#Moved from WP:AE]-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good wishes, Andrew c. Vice versa, of course. Out of sympathy for Thatcher131, I'll let my comments at the talk page speak for themselves.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Redact my comment per Andrew c. Reposted at User talk:Severa/archive8#Moved from Arbitration enforcement] -Severa (!!!) 01:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the warning I issued at Mitt Romney was caused by uncivil exchanges entirely unrelated to abortion. In fact, two other users were warned at the same time. I had previously asked if such activity could fall under the language of the ArbCom, but User:Crockspot and others indicated that editing on non-abortion aspects of Romney could not run afoul of his editing restriction. I agree. The restriction is not a topic ban, but is instead a prohibition on: (1) editing disruptively (2) on abortion topics. Neither of the warnings satisfy these conditions, so it should be shown that Ferrylodge is currently editing disruptively on abortion topics. A mere disagreement is not disruptive. Cool Hand Luke 04:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MartinPhi poisoning the well

Is it appropriate for MartinPhi to come into a conflict with which he admits he is not involved and poison the well against me? Here is the relevant diff: [65]. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the relevant Arbitration cases? Thatcher131 19:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. I was involved in that case, so take this for what it's worth: but following ScienceApologist around to various talk pages ~~, by tracking his contrib history,~~ specifically to bring up the Arbitration case seems like borderline Wikistalking and probably violates MartinPhi's restriction against disruptive behavior. MastCell ^Talk 19:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is well known that Wiki is very, very hard to follow. If ScienceApologist is (to use the current word) poisoning the Wikipedia experience for new or newish users, or simply users who are unfamiliar with him, it is quite ok -only ethical- to let them know that he is under sanction probably for doing exactly what he's doing there. They deserve to know that, and how else can they find out? If the sanction does not apply to the case, then it does him no harm. If it does, then the sanction should be applied, because the newish users have a right to defend themselves. Otherwise, they are in the position of being bullied by a highly aggressive and highly experienced user, without recourse. Far from being disruptive, this is merely a step toward ArbCom enforcement. Also, I was not wikistalking- I watch the article, and saw that SA was giving other users a hard time -whether justifiably, I don't know.

In point of fact, one of my first experiences with being attacked on Wiki was by ScienceApologist, when I was just in the position I guess they are- a newish user, unable to find my way around very well at all. Boy, was that a negative experience. I wouldn't want anyone else to have to go through that. They deserve the help.

ScienceApologist admits above that it is in fact a conflict (rather than a debate, for instance) and says that I am not involved. I'm involved in WP, and made a contribution as an outside party, giving a bit of highly relevant context as a more experienced user. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments seek to position yourself as an altruistic "outside party" simply "providing context" for a new user. However, the title of the relevant ArbCom case attests to a long-standing conflict between yourself and ScienceApologist. Furthermore, the "newish" user in question has been on-wiki since May 2005, predating all of us. It would be advisable not to track ScienceApologist and insert yourself into discussions he's having; doing so is virtually guaranteed to be counterproductive given the deep historical antagonism between the two of you. MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I will consider your advice. When I see IP users I assume they are new, though that isn't always true. But also consider that it does him absolutely no harm in the case that he is not violating the terms of his probabtion.

Also, I don't track him. I just watch that article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per that ruling, Martinphi, you may be banned from any article or talk page you disrupt. That was in my view a disruptive edit, pouring petrol on the flames and in the process bolstering someone who is advancing a fringe view and impeding SA's attempts to help people there understand sourcing, verifiability and neutrality policies. It's hard to see what intent there was other than undermining SA, which is borderline harassment. It may well be that SA's style is brusque, but your intervention has consistently failed to do anything to improve that, and he's never going to accept you asn an honest broker, so I strongly suggest you butt out of that dispute. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget that SA is under restrictions too...These two have been to arbcom already and a quick look makes me think this is just a rehash of old issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martinphi, you jumped in to a talk page dispute where you have never edited before in order to poke ScienceApologist with a stick. Don't do it again. ScienceApologist is under restriction that he may be banned from a page or pages for being uncivil, making personal attacks, and assuming bad faith about another editor. I don't see that in his discussion with the IP editor. In any case, the proper response, if you see such behavior, is to report it rather than make it worse. I repeat, don't do it again. Thatcher131 01:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 : I am in favor of having any impartial mediator. So far, Golbez has not proven to be one. All of the above clearly indicate quite the opposite. I am for Moreschi's help. --[[User:Ehud Lesar|Ehud]] ([[User talk:Ehud Lesar|talk]]) 01:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
+::Banned members have no say in this. You are banned so you should learn to face it. - [[User:Fedayee|Fedayee]] ([[User talk:Fedayee|talk]]) 03:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 ==VartanM==

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Cannabis Ruderalis

Revision as of 03:09, 22 December 2007