Edit this section for new requests

Add new requests to the top of the page. Old requests will be automatically archived off the bottom three days after the last time stamp.

Fresh from a 24 hour block, Neutral Good (talk · contribs) has continued causing disruptions:

1. Neutral Good used Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Waterboarding as a club to attack those editors who did not want to engage in mediation with them. Assumptions of bad faith included:
   1. "This editor is making excuses to avoid mediation and probably would not participate in good faith under any circumstances." [1]
   2. "This involved administrator is already trying to sabotage mediation." [2]
2. Today Neutral Good did an extensive rewrite of waterboarding, without consensus.[3] The edit summary was, "This article contained 69 uses of the word "torture." Someone has been making a WP:POINT. I have reduced them." User:Akhilleus reverted this edit [4] and left an explanation at Talk:Waterboarding. [5]
3. Earlier User:Lar made some interesting observations. [6] [7]
4. Undeterred by the rejection of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Waterboarding, Neutral Good has filed Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Waterboarding 2, simply omitting the names of the parties who did not agree with the first request.

It's time for the no-holds-barred warring over this article to be ended. One editor in particular is responsible for creating a battlezone by using every wikitactic available to try to get their way. Perhaps a topic ban would encourage them to develop other interests and become more familiar with Wikipedia's principles. Jehochman ^Talk 04:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A six month topic ban for this editor may not be a bad idea. If he is serious about contributing to this project, he will go and edit other articles during that time. If he is not, then it will be obvious what this is all about. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Six month community enforced topic ban proposed for Neutral Good (talk · contribs)

• Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• OK Frankly, I think this is very lenient, but if NG wants to contribute constructively to another topic area, I won't object. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've only followed this a little bit, and very recently, but it seems like a clear cut case. By the way, I had to hunt to find the meaning of Topic Ban, found it at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Note that the difference between the outright ban and the "community enforced" version is this: "Probation is used as an alternative to an outright topic ban in cases where the editor shows some promise of learning better behavior." Seems to lend credence to Akhilleus' concern, though I also wouldn't object. -Pete (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks like User:Neutral Good set up the account just to be disruptive to Waterboarding article and any editor who wants to write about the topic. I hope he can find other areas to edit besides things that have to do with torture. Igor Berger (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I support this too. We don't need editors like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Lenient. Black Kite 07:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. henrik•talk 07:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Lawrence § t/e 07:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Editors who were accused of making excuses to avoid mediation were in fact making excuses to avoid mediation. You hid behind your false sockpuppet accusations once more; those have now been proven false, to the entire extent that they can be proven false, without me bringing four forms of photo ID to a Wikipedia convention and putting on a slideshow to prove that I am not Bryan Hinnen. In a nutshell, you claim that you don't object to the concept of mediation; you just don't like the person who's proposing it. If that were true, you would proceed with mediation because it is carefully supervised dispute resolution that is intended to resolve a CONTENT DISPUTE. We have a content dispute, people, and this isn't going to make it go away; it will only delay its resolution for another six months. You tried to get rid of me with ArbCom and failed. You've tried to get rid of me three times with your RFCU witch hunts and failed each time. The only purpose this has served is delaying resolution of the content dispute, which may be your real purpose because you enjoy your blatant WP:NPOV violation and the America bashing that it provides cover for. Defining waterboarding as torture in the first six words of the article, when there's an active dispute over whether it's torture with mutiple prominent adherents on both sides (see Jimbo Wales quote in WP:WEIGHT) is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. As if that's not bad enough, using the word "torture" 69 times in an article is definitely WP:POINT in action. But you're shooting the messenger instead, and then you will continue to wonder why the academic community doesn't take Wikipedia seriously. Neutral Good (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sockpuppet allegations have not been "proven false". The checks run are inconclusive. That is not proof of falsehood. Do not twist my words around, please, you have been warned about this. ++Lar: t/c 13:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems about right for what seems to be a "vexatious litigant"--BozMo talk 11:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A claim like wikipedia isn't taken seriously in the academic community because waterboarding is described as torture - when there is zero academic debate about the fact that waterboarding is torture - is the final straw for me. The lack of credibility of wikipedia in the academic community has far more to do with the inclusion of nonsense such as a pretense that there is any serious (or notable) debate about the nature of waterboarding outside the realm of politics. Jay*Jay (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Although repeated CUs have been inconclusive (preface inserted so that Neutral Good doesn't waste time pointing it out and possibly get blocked by me for violating his warning not to twist my findings around) common consensus seems to be that Neutral Good is just the latest manifestation of long term banned user BryanFromPalatine, or if not, someone closely enough associated with Bryan to easily pass a DUCK test, so I'd suggest that this ban be framed to encompass Neutral Good as well as anyone else who appears here with the same MO, sufficient to pass a new DUCK test... It should also be framed to encompass anything at all torture related. Support whether that extension is endorsed or not but prefer if it is so we waste less time. ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This edit, complete with the repeated removal of the word "torture" from literal quotes, to an article already under article probation, by a single-issue editor with an apparently indefatigable drive to own the article, who has been warned time and time again about disruptive editing, is the last straw. The community has bent over backwards to be fair to this individual over a course of many months: there has to be a limit to patience, and this, for me, was it. -- The Anome (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I am unclear why this tendentious, disruptive single-purpose account retains any editing privileges at all, given the totality of its history. I would strongly favor an indefinite block, and wold probably have applied one myself at the next blatantly bad-faith action this account undertook. That said, a 6-month topic ban is a lenient but acceptable alternative - provided that it's accompanied by a clear resolve that the next bad-faith, disruptive action, either during the topic ban or thereafter, will result in a lengthy or indefinite block. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, MastCell. Clearly, the topic ban needs to be accompanied with explicit wording about any further disruption, and the consequences of such disruption such as escalating blocks (1 week, 1 month, 3 months, etc,). If the editor takes the opportunity to reform, that would be great, and if he/she is not, then a site-ban would be the next step. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 2nd choice, I pity the editors of any new subject area that receives this editor's "attention". Foisting this disruption into a different arena just moves the problem around. R. Baley (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that were that to happen, the next step would be a permanent community ban. -- The Anome (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe a topic ban is far more effective than a block, assuming the at times gross incivility stops immedediately. Dorftrottel (harass) 18:41, February 25, 2008
• Support: He has clearly tested the patience of many editors, and a topic ban may be the method of choice. Further vios. at either waterboarding or any other article should be accompanied by an indef. block. seicer | talk | contribs 22:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks

Shibumi2 (talk · contribs), proven sock puppeteer and suspected sock of BryanFromPalatine, has reappeared on the scene. They are rewriting waterboarding to reduce the number of times the word torture is used.[8] It's as if this account is the alter ego of Neutral Good (talk · contribs). Neutral Good gets into hot water, and then suddenly, the same disruptive activity shifts to a different account. I suggest extending the above ban to cover Shibumi2 as well as any other duck-like accounts that carry on the same activity. Jehochman ^Talk 22:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good let them go work on something else and stop being fixated on one topic. It sure looks like these people have an alternative motive for editing Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support... but ensure that they are given notice of a possible topic ban upon first offence, and include a link to the prior disputes with Natural Good. seicer | talk | contribs 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose What is disruptive about my activity? Shibumi2 (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The author of this edit is clearly not interested in writing an encyclopedia. This degree of mindless POV-pushing is beyond tolerable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If we think that Shibumi2 is an "alternate account" of Neutral Good, why are we bothering with topic bans? If someone is using sockpuppets to get around a block, we don't stop with topic bans. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As I said above (why are we using numbers here instead of bullets ? :) ) I think we should topic ban any account that passes the DUCK test. Which Shibumi2 does. So the ban should be worded that way if at all possible. ++Lar: t/c 23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that, but if Shibumi2 passes the duck test, he's violating NG's block. I suppose I'm just saying that if I were an uninvolved administrator, we would not be discussing topic bans; we would be reviewing my indefinite block of both accounts. But I am involved in the "content dispute", such as it is. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nod. The community is doing an extraordinary amount of bending over backwards here. For which it is to be commended (everyone, give your neighbor a hug!). Probably won't work but no one can say the community didn't try. ++Lar: t/c 00:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I am all for loving my brother, and I was prepared to make some apologies as promised in the RFAR based on the RFCU "technical" findings by Lar, but this just takes the cake, and then stomps the boot into it above and beyond that. Tired Support. Lawrence § t/e 00:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take action here, under the provisions of the Arbitration case and the feedback above, and ban Neutral Good (talk · contribs) from all pages in all namespaces related to waterboarding (loosely construed) for 6 months for extensive disruption. Violation of the ban will result in an indefinite block, as will further disruptive editing outside the topic area or after expiration of the ban. I'm not going to take action regarding Shibumi2 (talk · contribs) at this point; I think there is suggestive, but not conclusive, evidence linking these two accounts. I am going to place Shibumi2 on notice that disruptive editing will result in a ban or block, but I don't see evidence of such disruption on Shibumi's part at present that would warrant such a sanction. I am open to hearing more evidence of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry between Shibumi2 and Neutral Good which would warrant a revision of these sanctions, but for now I'm not seeing enough. I will post notice of these sanctions to the involved users' talk pages and log it at the Arbitration page. MastCell ^Talk 00:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting an extension of the remedies on Derek Smart. As currently stated, the SPA restrictions expired 5 months ago, the ban of User:Supreme Cmdr (Derek Smart) expires next month, and the ban on Derek Smart and his surrogates editing the Derek Smart page is infinite. Smart/Supreme Cmdr has continuously violated all of the remedies in this case that apply to him, including as recently as creating a role account to push his POV in January, and using IP's which resolve to his office's location to delete content from the page (violation of both his ban, and the article remedy), and harassing users on their talk pages who revert his damage. I'm requesting that the ban on Supreme Cmdr be extended to 1 year from the date of his last infraction, resetting with each infraction. His last infraction was yesterday, so instead of expiring next month his ban would reset with yesterday's infraction, to expire on 2/23/09. Should he evade his ban again, the ban should reset each time, with the 1 year countdown starting over. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean 2/23/09 right? SirFozzie (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do, sorry. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any objection to this? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on RFAR this is somewhat unusual but it seems to be well-justified in this case. Thatcher 15:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there appears to be no objection here, or at AN/I, I'm going to notate the arbitration case that this has occurred. If that's incorrect, please feel free to correct me. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am making a formal complaint about ScienceApologist because of his comment at [9]. I am co-director of the AA-EVP [10] and an active researcher in the field of EVP/ITC. He knows I monitor the EVP article, and so I am assuming that he intended his comments to me and my fellow researchers as a personal insult. This belief is further supported by a subsequent edit by SA: [11]

Alone, this event could be considered an editor having a bad day, but he has used the same tone many times and his active expression of this attitude in his edits has become an obstruction. At best, it make it very difficult to work in such an environment. There has been at least one judgement against him here [12].

Can you assist me in finding a way of stopping this direct assault on both my character ad the character of the thousands of people around the world who study paranormal subjects? Tom Butler (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologized, struckthrough the comment, and am trying to move on. What more do you want from me? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...WP:WQA#Complaint against ScienceApologist? This is more of a civility issue that has since been corrected by SA retracting the comment and apologising. What more do you want? seicer | talk | contribs 02:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with seicer. If an editor ameliorates a problem, we do not punish. Do you have reason to believe that there will be imminent recurrences for which we must block the user to prevent harm? I don't see it. Also, what are you talking about? The alphabet soup has me confused. Jehochman ^Talk 02:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I received this comment on my talk page. Stating to someone that they are "making things up" is a very far reach of a personal attack. seicer | talk | contribs 02:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 96 hours for breaking arbcom civility and AGF restrictions. SA only struck the comment after the AN/AE thread was started[13]. Obviously the previous shortened block did not have the desired effect. SA is not allowed to be incivil and then strike comments - the arbcom case requires that SA is careful to AGF and be civil. In reviewing SA's other recent contribs, I noticed other problems I will note here shortly. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two additional aspects of SA's recent contribs stand out - I found many other problems, but here are two that characterise the user conduct.

SA is involved in a content dispute on What the Bleep Do We Know!?, and has been resorting to incivil behaviour, with snide remarks in the edit summary.[14]

Also, on Talk:Parapsychology#Problems_with_the_revised_lead, SA has been advocating that other users comments be "taken with a grain of salt"[15], and has repeated accusations of COI that have been decided by the community to be unsupported at WP:COIN (Archive 19). Note that her user page clearly states her potential for COI - so any editor can evaluate it for themself - SA does not need to use this in order to request that editors disregard her opinions. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary on What the Bleep Do We Know is not a violation of WP:CIVIL in any way. He is not making a comment about an editor ... he's making a comment about a project manager with a BS in Engineering Science that lists his job as "research physicist" in his press releases and bio. "Fraud" would have been quite appropriate.Kww (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt say that edit summary was a violation of WP:CIVIL - I said it was a snide remark, about a living person. How do you know that the person is not a Wikipedia editor? It was unnecessarily inflammatory, which lead to an edit war. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That edit summary is pretty borderline, and seems to fall well on the side of "direct expression of relevant opinion" rather than "sanctionable incivility". As SA withdrew the inappopriate comment in question and apologized, this block has a fairly punitive feel to it. I'm not going to undo it, but I'd urge reconsideration. MastCell ^Talk 04:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In the original WQA complaint, TomButler referred to SA's comments as "the sign of a sociopath" so there's bad blood on both sides of this dispute, and the OP came to WQA clearly seeking for SA to be severely punished (he originally asked for him to be banned from all paranormal articles). SA's comment was clearly not called for, but it was retracted and he apologized, and from what I've seen elsewhere on Wiki, such a comment would not normally be considered a blockable personal attack. Please reconsider.DanielEng (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this editor gets too many do overs. The comment was uncivil and he is under an Arbcom restriction. The edit summary seems at first borderline, because he wasn't commenting on an involved editor. I understand John Vandenberg's comment that it is still a personal attack and the editor could be a wiki editor. Anthon01 (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is worth noting the time line here:

• Original comment made at 0237 (UTC) 22 Feb by user:ScienceApologist
• WQA report made at 2238 (UTC) 22 Feb by user:Tom Butler - Tom does not post a notification to ScienceApologist of the report
• user:Randy Blackamoor responds on WQA at 0043 (UTC) on 23 Feb. Tom respons on Randy's talk page 11 minutes later, and then on WQA after a further 2 minutes. Randy responds to Tom on WQA after another 2 minutes.
• Discussions then continue for more than another 25 hours involving user:Leadwind, user:Fill, user:Seicer, user:Wndl42, user:Anynobody, user:Martinphi, and user:DanielEng. During this time, no one thinks to inform ScienceApologist that a complainst has been filed at WQA.
• At 0203 (UTC) 24 Feb, Seicer notifies ScienceApologist on his talk page, and notes this fact in the WQA discussion 1 minute later.
• 13 minutes after notification, ScienceApoologist posts the first of three edits on WQA in response, which includes an undertaking to refactor. It seems that ScienceApologist responded as soon as he was made aware of the report, and had struck the comments by 0222 (UTC) 24 Feb [16] - thus the promised refactoring occurred within 4 minutes of leaving WQA.
• It turns out that Tom Butler posted a complaint to WP:AE about ScienceApologist 1 h 11 min before Seicer notified ScienceApologist of the WQA report. As with the WQA report, Tom did not post any notice for ScienceApologist of the AE report. Seicer notifies ScienceApologist of the AE report 15 minutes after the refactoring is made, and ScienceApologist responds on AE 1 minute later (at 0238) stating that he "apologized, struckthrough the comment, and am trying to move on". In issuing his 96 h block (at 0305), John Vandenberg states on AE that "SA only struck the comment after the AN/AE thread was started", which is technically true. However, John states on ScienceApologist's talk page that his "post on AN/AE mischaracterises your handling of this matter. You clearly did not intend to strike your comment prior to this." This is not supported by the evidence. The comment was struck prior to ScienceApologist being informed of the AE report, and occurred immediately after he was informed of the WQA report. John, you have unfairly judged ScienceApologist's actions here.
• Both WQA and AE procedures require the user being complained about to be notified via their talk page. Tom Butler did not do this in either case, and should be at least admonished for this failure. Depending on how commonly he has previously made WQA and AE reports (about which I have no idea), a more serious sanction may also be warranted.
• It is also worth noting that the talk page where the comment was made appears to have no request for ScienceApologist to refactor, either by Tom Butler himself or by any other contributor to that page.

In other words, ScienceApologist refactored immediately on being advised that a concern had been raised. Tom Butler, as the complaining party, did not request refactoring where the comment was made, nor on ScienceApologist's talk page> He did make reports at WQA and then later at AE, both without notifying ScienceApologist, whilst engaging in talk page discussion of the issue with both Randy Blackamoor and Raymond Arritt. John Vandenberg, you should immediately re-evaluate your block - I think you have made a mistake, and might even have not accorded ScienceApologist the assumption of good faith. You should also do something in response to Tom Butler's actions. Jay*Jay (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is at issue here is that per WP:RFAR(Martinphi-ScienceApologist), SA is not supposed to be incivil. Arbcom didnt say "you may be incivil provided that you strike your comments later". SA is supposed to be careful to avoid ABF and incivility. I don't see that. Do you see that?

When I pointed out that SA didnt strike the comments until it was raised here, I was not implying that my decision was primarily based on the fact that he had delayed striking until it was raised here. I was noting that SA's response here was mischaracterising the situation; SA made it sound as if this had already been dealt with, and that raising it on AN/AE was inappropriate. The fact is that it hadnt been corrected before that time.

The real problem is that SA is continually using "borderline" incivility, and it is usually being used to inappropriately dominate an article or discussion. Enough is enough. This talk comment is incivil to every single editor who might believe in that topic. That is no different from atheists going to talk pages about religions and saying that anyone who believes in the religion is a pack of morons. This apology is not good enough. Many other diffs are also unacceptable. Do you want me to list them all?? Talk pages are not an avenue for attacking other editors; talk pages are there to discuss the content, and should be done in a civil manner. If SA needs practise in debating skills, I am sure that the local Toastmasters will be welcoming -- wiki talk pages are not the place to exercise those skills.

The point of the arbcom case was the prevent this type of behaviour. It's not working; the behaviour exhibited at the time of the last block is still occurring. The last block was shortened, so I have been cautious and blocked for the same period as the previous block. The purpose of escalating duration of blocks is to persuade editors to improve the way they interact with others. Hopefully this block will convince SA that the mission to protect the wiki does not supersede the arbcom outcome that SA is under restrictions due to prior bad conduct. John Vandenberg (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: JV's comment "I was noting that SA's response here was mischaracterising the situation; SA made it sound as if this had already been dealt with, and that raising it on AN/AE was inappropriate."

Just so everyone's clear that SA didn't mischaracterize anything, a timeline:

• 00:52, 24 February --TB's original post to AE (this is the time stamp seen at top of thread).[17]

• 02:03, 24 February --Science Apologist is informed of the (1+ day old) WQA thread by seicer.

• 02:09, 24 February --TB Removes post at AE.[18]

• 02:16, 24 February 2008 --SA apologizes at WQA.[19]

• 02:22, 24 February 2008 --ScienceApologist strikes offending part of comment.[20]

• 02:27, 24 February --TB reposts but with original (00:52) time stamp.[21]

• 02:38, 24 February --ScienceApologist re-iterates apology at AE (11 minutes after 2nd AE post by TomButler).[22]

Submitted by R. Baley (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully endorse this block. John Vandenberg is spot on. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't endorse it at all. John Vandenberg seems to be working up a lather from very little indeed. At worst, we have something that merits a warning (and I'm not even sure about that). A 96-hour block is ludicrous. -- Hoary (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not endorse a 96h block. At the most, for using the word "moron" in a term that is not derogatory towards another editor, it would have warranted a warning if that. Most of those involved outside of SA have been those involved either with the article itself, Electronic Voice Phenomenon, or are involved in the Wikiproject itself and have a vested interest in seeing this editor leave the project or become blocked indef. seicer | talk | contribs 14:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_{Side note: I've left a note on the original poster's talk page regarding the lack of notices given to SA at WQA and AE. seicer | talk | contribs 14:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Taken alone and if the first time SA did this sort of thing, I'd agree, but SA has a long, long history of this sort of behavior of pushing the envelope and prior blocks have not worked, he continues in this sort of behavior. There is also a request for mediation in which he was the only one who didn't agree to it and another where he said he'd only agree if the mediator were a scientist. I'll look up the diffs later today on these. These show his unwillingness to work this out with others in this collaborative encyclopedia. That is why this block is justified. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a great big gap between unwilling to work with others and unwilling to work with people that think their radios are haunted. Perhaps Wikipedia could focus a bit on how to get such people to stop editing, and then the rest of us could have an easier time living under the constraints of WP:CIVIL.Kww (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That comment would be offensive to those people and shows that you do not understand that wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. The way to live with WP:CIVIL is to be civil, not cut out an entire group of people just because they don't agree with you. Not to mention SA's failure to apologize to Annalisa after several polite requests, including from a totally uninvolved admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will first apologize to SA for not notifying him. I had assumed an admin did that and I had no desire to risk his aggressive response back at me. I posted this complaint at the bottom and then realized it was supposed to be at the top. I gather I did that wrong as well--didn't think of the time stamp.

When I tried seeking advice from the etiquette page, I immediately ran into what seemed like a wisecrack. Already irritated that I had to take time away from my other duties, I was deeply saddened that an editor would respond in that fashion--attack the person not respond to the point. The discussion went downhill from there as many of the editors seemed to agree with SA and Blackamoor.

SA has been an abusive editor toward me and others since I began editing over a year ago. I have a hard time believing in his recantation. He later accused me of making up "all kinds of things": "AAEVP is not quite good enough to source this. They make up all kinds of things at their website. What would be best is if we found someone who didn't believe in EVP reporting on the classification scheme (per WP:FRINGE#Independent sources). Barring that, if we could find one of the people mentioned in our article (like Raudive, for example) who used the classification scheme, at least that would be more authoritative than some website that Tom Butler made up one day. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)" [23]. That is identical to saying that I lied. He did not strike that.[reply]

Some of you seem to be trying to excuse SA by finding fault with me. There is no doubt bad blood between us, but I am not the one who has decided to ... well it is hard too describe what without stepping over the edge. If you think it is okay to call any group of people morons, then perhaps we have a more systemic problem here. It is obvious that other editors take the lead from those who so easily ridicule others and follow with their own name calling. Are some of you saying that other editors should just get think skins? Don't forget that many unregistered people simply read the talk pages. What do you want them to see? Do you like anarchy? Tom Butler (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist emailed me, asking me to review this block. 12 hours is more than suffecient given the triviality of what he did, that he immediately revised it when asked, and that he wasn't notified about the thread on this page. As such, I've unblocked him. Raul654 (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's way more involved here than that one issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: I have another issue to raise in regards to SA's behaviour. SA has been involved with mediation on cold fusion, which I am mediating. But his comments at my RfA, such as this, are deeply disturbing. "I was concerned (and still am concerned) that he was being way too accommodating of the fringe POV in the mediation." In other words, he feels that taking into consideration the opposing parties comments and edits are now too accommodating and is representative of bad faith. His comments are bordering upon misplaced criticism. I'm not looking for any administrative action, just a few notes in regards if this specifically is a continuing issue with SA? seicer | talk | contribs 22:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reply has since been posted. You can disregard the above. seicer | talk | contribs 23:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With a blocklog such as this, the community is showing a tremendous amount of leniency. SA is not helping his cause by getting dinged every other week. This needs to stop. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following further consideration and a discussion with John Vandenberg, I hold the view that the block was justified - ScienceApologist was under an ArbCom restriction to be civil, and the edit in question was not. I am generally sympathetic to SA's views on science. Like him, I deplore the selective enforcement of WP:CIVIL while failing to effective enforce policies including WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:FRINGE, [and [WP:TE]]. However, under the present circumstances, giving ammunition to tendentious editors is unwise (note: this comment does not relate to any particular user or circumstance); nevertheless, ignoring ArbCom restrictions is unacceptable. SA has done both, and for the latter, deserved to be blocked.
However, I also believe that much of the controversy here was caused not be the intemperate words of SA, but rather by the poorly expressed initial explanations provided by John Vandenberg. By justifying the block based on the timing of the striking of the comments - after this thread had begun - and failing to recognise that SA had not been notified, John created the appearance of an injustice. John's explanation on SA's talk page is worse, because it draws a conclusion about intent that the evidence above refutes. If John had stated that the block was for the ArbCom violation, that striking the comment did not matter because it was the original post that was the violation, and that other examples were available, much of this discussion could have been avoided. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence a few days ago touched off (or reignited) a ferocious edit war on Kosovo that spilled over to Serbia, the reason being that some asserted that Kosovo was an independent state, while others said it wasn't. It is my understanding that Kosovo was already under Arbcom probation at the time (whatever that means), and that Serbia was likely under the same probation, because of earlier assertations along the same lines. Currently, both pages are protected for a week. I'm not at all sure that this was the right thing to do (I am NOT an admin, so don't ask me), and I'm not at all sure that a week's protection is enough (or too much, for that matter). What says Arbcom? — Rickyrab | Talk 06:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you are thinking of WP:ARBMAC, which is the ruling for Balkan issues. BalkanFever 08:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, Kosovo and all related articles have been under permanent Arbitration-imposed article probation anyway, since before ARBMAC. The only thing we can do is to try to use these tools quickly, decisively and judiciously, on whatever article the edit wars spill over to. A useful rule of thumb might be a quick short block for incipient edit warring, and then a medium-length topic ban (like two or three months until the dispute has hopefully abated) for repeat edit-warring offenders, especially those whose talkpage behaviour is either non-existent or openly tendentious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge: Ferrylodge is subject to an editing restriction indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing.

Ferrylodge is behaving disruptively at Talk:Abortion. The entire thread in question is here. He claims that a quote sourced to numerous secondary sources is taken out of context, stating: "This is about as biased and misleading a statement as can be, but I will not attempt to correct it. Instead, as a harmless experiment, I'll provide the full quotation from Dr. Koop, with citation, and we'll see if the people who control this article have the slightest interest in providing any neutrality whatsoever... I'm curious to see whether anyone else will correct it, or whether they prefer it to be grossly misleading and biased in this and so many other ways." This was his initial statement, before anyone even argued the point. He added: "but, who cares about accuracy, right?"

Subsequent highlights include:

• "Attention Admins... None of the cited sources say that Koop used the word "miniscule" in any letter to Reagan. And when a speaker clarifies a statement, as Koop did here, it is dishonest to completely exclude the clarification. This little incident is symptomatic of rampant POV editing in the abortion-related articles." (The "dishonesty" consists of using the quotes selected by the New York Times Magazine and the New Scientist without appending the additional quote that Ferrylodge mined from the primary transcript of the hearings).
• "It appears to be Wikipedia policy for admins to look the other way."
• Repeated charges of "dishonesty", concluding with "Evidently, you prefer the article to be grossly misleading and biased in this and so many other ways."
• "...normal Wikipedia rules apparently do not apply at the abortion-related articles."
• (In reference to another editor): "This is entirely typical of you... But there's apparently some kind of policy to let you do whatever you want, so I give up."
• (Again in reference to another editor): "You continue to avoid answering a very simple question: Do you believe that you are entitled to insert whatever you like into Wikipedia articles, regardless of how many people object? ...Is it because you're able to succeed with this steamrolling that you continue to do it?"
• "OK, I've had it. You're repeatedly pasting massive amounts of redundant stuff, swamping whatever comments other people make, refusing to respond, and genereally being obnoxious. Goodbye, and I hope you enjoy writing this article to satisfy your every whim and fancy, just like you did the fetus article. And shame on Wikipedia's admins for allowing such a travesty."

Ferrylodge has, as ArbCom has pointed out, "a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion." His behavior on Talk:Abortion was clearly confrontational rather than collaborative from the get-go, and as usual produced tons of heat and zero light on a topic that's difficult in the best of times. In view of his long history and his current behavior, I'm asking that the ArbCom remedy be enforced and that he be banned from abortion and its associated talk page. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mastcell is not an "uninvolved admin" as specified by the ArbCom decision. Mastcell made this edit at the abortion article yesterday. I reverted here. He has not thanked me for correcting him, nor even acknowledged that the POV editorial he was citing did not use the language which he attributed to it. Anyone can look at Mastcell’s edit, and see that my reversion was correct, and that he was inserting an unsourced statement into the abortion article. I urge people to go see if I am telling the truth about this, by looking at the two diffs I have just cited.

Then today, Mastcell accused me of trying to remove “context” from the abortion article, and I replied to that plainly erroneous accusation here. It is absurd for Mastcell to say that deleting a sentence from a quote provides context, and that inserting the sentence removes context. I urge people to go see if I am telling the truth about this, by looking at the diff I have just cited.

Not only is Mastcell not uninvolved here; he has been POV-pushing and making personal attacks, as demonstrated by the diffs I have just provided. And to top it off, he cannot cite any edit that I made to the abortion article that was inappropriate. Instead, he quotes some colorful language from the talk page, which I admit did become somewhat heated, but was not unreasonable given the circumstances.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I were an uninvolved admin, I would have topic-banned you based on your well-documented negative effect on these articles. The reason I brought the issue here is that I am involved and therefore not about to use the tools myself. I have made 1 edit to abortion in the past 4 months (that's as far back as I looked). Ferrylodge's expectation that I "thank" him for "correcting" that 1 edit is exemplary of the problem here. Applying "the best defense is a good offense" by attempting to impeach me here is not likely to be successful - you're under ArbCom sanction for a reason. I'm not interested in the sort of endless debate that these conversations inevitably deteriorate into; I've said my piece, and I'll wait for an uninvolved admin to look this over. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The complained-of comments don't seem disruptive; he provided the full context of the quote, but it wasn't unreasonable for him to predict the reaction in advance. Was his prediction incorrect? Is he supposed to ignore what he sees, and pretend that the heavy contingent of "pro-choice" editors are editing in a neutral fashion, when experience shows otherwise? I think he's entitled to a certain amount of cynicism, given what he's experienced. -- Zsero (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Predicting" that people will be "dishonest", "biased", etc in your initial post is a surefire way to generate conflict and sabotage any hope of consensus. Can we keep this area free of input from Ferrylodge's partisans (or mine, I suppose, were that an issue) and allow an admin to review it? MastCell ^Talk 19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mastcell says, "This was his initial statement, before anyone even argued the point." People can look at the edit history of the abortion article, and see that the matter had already been the subject of edit summaries.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice in reviewing the proposed decision that the restriction version which passed was chosen in favor of an original variant that said "any article or other page". The elimination by the committee of language "or other page" is to me significant. I'm not inclined to take any action based on talk page behavior, and all the diffs above are from the talk page. My review of the article's history does not evidence disruption by Ferrylodge in the past week. I think this report should be closed without action. However, if there is an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior on talk pages, a case could be made for an expansion of the ArbComm sanctions. I note that there are no prior incidents logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge#Log of blocks and bans, so evidence to support such a request will need to be found elsewhere. GRBerry 19:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that a request for clarification resulted in an arbitrator saying talk pages were included, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge#More clarification requested Mistakenly thought Thatcher was on the ArbCom all these months.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, Andrew c. I'm not clear about who the arbitrator was. In any event, it says at the link you provided that "I personally would allow more freedom on talk pages, but there still will be an actionable level of disruption." And it also seems that the elimination by the committee of the language GRBerry mentions was significant.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I was unaware that this talk-page issue had come up before. I'll mention Thatcher's comment to GRBerry, but I'm not going to shop it around - if GRBerry feels this is either passable behavior or outside ArbCom's remit, I'll accept that. MastCell ^Talk 06:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, Mastcell, does elimination by the committee of the language GRBerry mentioned affect your opinion in any way? It seems possibly significant to me. But in any event, even putting that issue aside, do you think that the behavior of other editors (to whom I was responding) is relevant? Those other editors included one admin who had just inserted a false statement into the article text, with an accompanying footnote to a POV newspaper editorial that did not even support the false statement. Correct?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be very clear and avoid extraneous debate here: ArbCom has identified you, quite correctly, as an editor with "a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion." Despite sanctions intended to curb your behavior, you continue to be an argumentative, tendentious, uncollaborative, and disruptive presence on these articles and talk pages. All of these horribly biased editors and admins whose "falsehoods" you're continually "correcting" are not under ArbCom sanction; you are. MastCell ^Talk 21:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, though that's not what I asked.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)Perhaps it should be mentioned here that Mastcell has requested action from ArbCom in this matter. [36]Ferrylodge (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]