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

These articles are not covered by the injunction, as they were created after the injunction was passed, and it specifically says "any currently existing". Editors who are abiding by the spirit of the injunction, which is intended to put a temporary halt to the mess, would not be creating new articles within its topical coverage nor would they be making AFD nominations. At any rate, those articles are excluded and no action will be taken here. GRBerry 04:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While this arbitration case is open, this temporary injunction is in effect. An involved party, Eusebeus has recently redirected season pages: Season 10 (Friends) Season 9 (Friends) Season 8 (Friends) . Personally I would have moved the pages to Friends (season 10), Friends (season 9), and Friends (season 8) in order to be consistent with other existing season pages like Smallville (season 1). It should be noted that Eusebeus previously redirected individual episode articles for Friends[1]. These season articles are not about *a* episode but rather several episodes so I was wondering if these actions fall under the injunction. --Pixelface (talk) 00:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't people just not do anything of the sort, to avoid conflict? Lawrence § t/e 00:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did not advise him of this filing, I've done so and asked him to explain himself. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I am going to revert all of those new articles. They add nothing, except for a brief synopsis, which I added back to the LOE. There was no consensus whatsoever for migrating the individual seasons to their own article, by which I mean there was no discussion, mention, reference, indication, hint, or prognostic of any kind at any page by any editors that would provide grounds for such a move or even annoucne, hint at suggest or intimate that such a move was going to happen, nor have any compelling reasons been advanced for such a move per Bold. I would advise Pixie that before he continues this childish behaviour, he actually go the effort of verifying that the supposed transgression he is reporting took place. NO content was eliminated, but an unnecessary fork for which no consensus has been established was reverted. My thanks to [[[User:Rlevse]] for alerting me to this and for his reasonable and in-depth examination of this issue and for not leaping to any conclusions or indulging in ominous sabre rattling. Eusebeus (talk) 00:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for not notifying you on your talk page, I missed that part in the above section. But my question isn't childish, unlike you referring to me as "Pixie." The question of whether season articles fall under the injunction applies to every editor on Wikipedia. Why you couldn't wait until the case was over to do it (after you've already redirected articles for episodes of Friends) is quite a good question. Editors don't have to have consensus to create articles. --Pixelface (talk) 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the inj. "For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character" to mean articles that were already existing prior to the RFAR case, especially as FT2 mentions "new topics" as a possible loophole in the injunction. The motion passed 3 February 2008; these articles were created 23 February 2008. I dont think it is wise for parties to create new articles that are contentious. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neutral Good banned from waterboarding-related pages for 6 months.

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

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." [11]
   2. "This involved administrator is already trying to sabotage mediation." [12]
2. Today Neutral Good did an extensive rewrite of waterboarding, without consensus.[13] 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 [14] and left an explanation at Talk:Waterboarding. [15]
3. Earlier User:Lar made some interesting observations. [16] [17]
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]
  • Clarify regarding other suggestions that have come up since my !vote, I would equally support an outright topic ban, a community-enforced ban, for a period of anywhere from one to six months. No preference among those options, I'll respect the judgment of anyone who has a clearer vision of the path forward than myself within those parameters. -Pete (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks like User:Neutral Good set up the account just to be disruptive to Waterboarding article and any editor who wants to write about the topic. I hope he can find other areas to edit besides things that have to do with torture. Igor Berger (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I support this too. We don't need editors like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Lenient. Black Kite 07:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. henrik•talk 07:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Lawrence § t/e 07:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Editors who were accused of making excuses to avoid mediation were in fact making excuses to avoid mediation. You hid behind your false sockpuppet accusations once more; those have now been proven false, to the entire extent that they can be proven false, without me bringing four forms of photo ID to a Wikipedia convention and putting on a slideshow to prove that I am not Bryan Hinnen. In a nutshell, you claim that you don't object to the concept of mediation; you just don't like the person who's proposing it. If that were true, you would proceed with mediation because it is carefully supervised dispute resolution that is intended to resolve a CONTENT DISPUTE. We have a content dispute, people, and this isn't going to make it go away; it will only delay its resolution for another six months. You tried to get rid of me with ArbCom and failed. You've tried to get rid of me three times with your RFCU witch hunts and failed each time. The only purpose this has served is delaying resolution of the content dispute, which may be your real purpose because you enjoy your blatant WP:NPOV violation and the America bashing that it provides cover for. Defining waterboarding as torture in the first six words of the article, when there's an active dispute over whether it's torture with mutiple prominent adherents on both sides (see Jimbo Wales quote in WP:WEIGHT) is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. As if that's not bad enough, using the word "torture" 69 times in an article is definitely WP:POINT in action. But you're shooting the messenger instead, and then you will continue to wonder why the academic community doesn't take Wikipedia seriously. Neutral Good (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sockpuppet allegations have not been "proven false". The checks run are inconclusive. That is not proof of falsehood. Do not twist my words around, please, you have been warned about this. ++Lar: t/c 13:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems about right for what seems to be a "vexatious litigant"--BozMo talk 11:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A claim like wikipedia isn't taken seriously in the academic community because waterboarding is described as torture - when there is zero academic debate about the fact that waterboarding is torture - is the final straw for me. The lack of credibility of wikipedia in the academic community has far more to do with the inclusion of nonsense such as a pretense that there is any serious (or notable) debate about the nature of waterboarding outside the realm of politics. Jay*Jay (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Although repeated CUs have been inconclusive (preface inserted so that Neutral Good doesn't waste time pointing it out and possibly get blocked by me for violating his warning not to twist my findings around) common consensus seems to be that Neutral Good is just the latest manifestation of long term banned user BryanFromPalatine, or if not, someone closely enough associated with Bryan to easily pass a DUCK test, so I'd suggest that this ban be framed to encompass Neutral Good as well as anyone else who appears here with the same MO, sufficient to pass a new DUCK test... It should also be framed to encompass anything at all torture related. Support whether that extension is endorsed or not but prefer if it is so we waste less time. ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This edit, complete with the repeated removal of the word "torture" from literal quotes, to an article already under article probation, by a single-issue editor with an apparently indefatigable drive to own the article, who has been warned time and time again about disruptive editing, is the last straw. The community has bent over backwards to be fair to this individual over a course of many months: there has to be a limit to patience, and this, for me, was it. -- The Anome (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I am unclear why this tendentious, disruptive single-purpose account retains any editing privileges at all, given the totality of its history. I would strongly favor an indefinite block, and wold probably have applied one myself at the next blatantly bad-faith action this account undertook. That said, a 6-month topic ban is a lenient but acceptable alternative - provided that it's accompanied by a clear resolve that the next bad-faith, disruptive action, either during the topic ban or thereafter, will result in a lengthy or indefinite block. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• I believe a topic ban is far more effective than a block, assuming the at times gross incivility stops immedediately. Dorftrottel (harass) 18:41, February 25, 2008
• Support: He has clearly tested the patience of many editors, and a topic ban may be the method of choice. Further vios. at either waterboarding or any other article should be accompanied by an indef. block. seicer | talk | contribs 22:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Normally i would oppose such a lengthy ban but seen as this is a SPA, it may be good for this editor to make other helpful contributions to wikipedia not linked to this article without the accusations and political bias that continues even on this page, to prove that the account doesn't exist soley to push a POV on this particular article. --neonwhite user page talk 00:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• One month I would suggest a one month ban as the next step. That would give him time to cool off and consider our requirement for civility. If he doesn't meet our standards of behavior then, a permanent ban would be the appropriate next step and would be easier to gain approval for since the matter will still be fresh in peoples' minds. --agr (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban now in force

User:MastCell has now formally imposed the topic ban discussed above: see User talk:Neutral Good. -- The Anome (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks

Shibumi2 (talk · contribs), proven sock puppeteer and suspected sock of BryanFromPalatine, has reappeared on the scene. They are rewriting waterboarding to reduce the number of times the word torture is used.[18] It's as if this account is the alter ego of Neutral Good (talk · contribs). Neutral Good gets into hot water, and then suddenly, the same disruptive activity shifts to a different account. I suggest extending the above ban to cover Shibumi2 as well as any other duck-like accounts that carry on the same activity. Jehochman ^Talk 22:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Just a note on Shibumi2, in case some were not aware. Neutral Good (as detailed in the RFCU/RFAR evidence) nominated him for adminship. Shibumi2 also goes out of his way to routinely push one of BryanFromPalatine's very specific agendas. Lawrence § t/e 00:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with ducks and AE

What is the usual practice with AE and dealing with ducks, if one decides to return to their original moulting, mating, and fishing habits with a shiny new set of feathers (in particular, if those feathers prove immune to technical Checkuser confirmation due to proxies or dynamic IPs)? Lawrence § t/e 00:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. Personally, I think these articles have seen enough abusive sockpuppetry etc that I'd be fairly quick to restrict or block an account that meets criteria. Are you referring to Shibumi2, or to potential new socks taking the place of Neutral Good? MastCell ^Talk 00:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to both. Lawrence § t/e 06:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may be admins more familiar with the situation willing to block both Neutral Good and Shibumi2 as sock- or meatpuppets. I'm not quite there with the evidence I've seen here, though it is quite suggestive. I wouldn't object to such a block, but I don't see enough to take the responsibility of placing and defending such a block myself either. I'll watch Shibumi2 closely with regard to the terms of the probation, and I'm happy to stomp on any new socks which appear. MastCell ^Talk 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is simlar disruption by these users, then extending the ban to them will be appropriate. I move to close this discussion now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

When a user declares a conflict of interest on their user page, it is not inherently incivil to discuss that conflict of interest. There is a line beyond which users should not go, but it wasn't crossed in the diffs presented. No action needed here. GRBerry 18:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist is subject to an editing restriction imposed by the ArbCom. [19][20] He continues to engage in uncivil personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith.[21] I have asked him to strike his uncivil comments[22] and he has declined to do so.[23][24] —Whig (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see how that was a personal attack. You do have a conflict of interest that you choose to ignore. Shell ^babelfish 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I have a conflict of interest? —Whig (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see the incivility. I see a tiny bit of bad faith, but seeing as SA reiterating the community opinion at RfC(Whig), RfC(Whig 2), and RfC(Whig 3), it is not unexpected that SA responded in that manner, and he was plain in the way he said it. We are here to build an encyclopedia. John Vandenberg (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC(Whig 3) was brought in bad faith to ban me from Wikipedia. Community opinion was not to do so, and the editor who brought it has vanished. I don't wish to comment on RfC2 or RfC1 at this time, the responses within will suffice. This is not a reason that ScienceApologist should refuse to take my request for civility seriously. —Whig (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, this user User:DanaUllman says that they work in the field of homeopathy (for reference, on their user page they say they are Dana Ullman), so wouldn't it seem that edits on articles about homeopathy do have the potential for COI? --Minderbinder (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:DanaUllman is under a mentorship agreement with User:LaraLove and she makes sure he knows how to carefully follow the COI rules. —Whig (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DanaUllman is Dana Ullman. Strangely Special:Whatlinkshere/Dana Ullman has no entries in the main namespace. Anyway, on topics that Dana Ullman is a proponent of, especially if there are few other proponents, there is a clear COI, but the user should still be treated with respect, until actual COI violations occur repeatedly. John Vandenberg (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am an expert on homeopathy and have written several books on the subject, as well as 3 chapters in medical textbooks, including the leading textbook on pain management and an upcoming textbook to be published by Oxford University on "integrative oncology." I also lecture regularly at medical schools (UCSF, Stanford, UC Davis). If being an author, an academician, and a lecturer at medical schools on the topic of homeopathy means that I have a COI on this subject, then wikipedia is doomed to be led by editors who know little and who have a point of view. Instead, I assume that some editors above do not like my contributions because I provide RS, V, and notable sources that suggests that homeopathy offers benefits to people. I do not refer in the article space to my own writings. Where's the COI and the beef? I hope that others who are experts and/or who are simply experienced in their respective fields contribute to this website. DanaUllman^Talk 19:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is closed, so we're not supposed to reply here, but anyway...WP:COI mentions "you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia". The potential COI isn't being knowledgeable on the subject, it's that if you edit the articles to make the topic sound more respected and accepted, you have the potential to benefit financially as an author etc. --Minderbinder (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

approved

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]

Ok with me. Closing this thread. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed as hopelessly muddled and unreadable. Interested parties are urged to write a short, coherent, complete report with clearly applicable diffs.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User ScienceApologist has been conducting a discrediting attack campaign against me and other editors including "invitations to leave the topic", "toeing the line" borderline incivility and repeated denigrations of other editor's contributions, just now culminating in this edit. At least six more diffs from the last few days will be provided as time allows. WNDL42 (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a sidenote and for context, SA's attack is being supported in almost an identical pattern of incivil edits by USER:KWW; I will also be posting diffs here in which SA and KWW "echo" one another. WNDL42 (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional diffs posted by Wndl42 (in no particular order): (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), [(8), (9)this extended diff (10) contains six personal attacks as part of an extended and personally directed diatribe in which SA repeatedly sidesteps arguments, presents faulty sources, and when found out, SA resorts to further personal attacks to avoid acknowledging embarassing error. The personal attacks are combined with "milder" forms of denigration such as Straw Man attacks to conceal the fact that SA's deceptive use of a source he knew was faulty had been shown to refute his own argument. Some keywords to search for include "ignorance", "fuck" and those interested enough to actually follow this tortured diatribe will see incessant use of the "straw man" to discredit editors. The final extended diff (11) I will present here involves SA's similarly failed attempt (on and around January 9) to cite Rosenblum and Kuttner's "Quantum Enigma", and when I demonstrated that his use of that text similarly did not support his argument (in fact, contradicted his argument), SA attacked me on my talk page in the diff found above (ref "I'm sorry you are ignorant"). SA repeatedly uses personal attacks and low-grade denigrations as "smoke screens" to cover areas in which his purported knowledge of science is not equal to the image he attempts to maintain here on Wikipedia. The final diff supporting my complaint here will be posted within the hour. (...more coming)

In the extended diff (11) above, some keywords directed by SA at editors arguing against SA's faulty assertions include "bullshit", "if you cannot understand", "idiocy", and all in the context of what I think was some very real and intelligent debate over the topic. In this case, when SA's discrediting attack failed, when his source was shown to contradict him, and when his command of the topic from a physics standpoint became questionable, he visited my talk page and posted the "I'm sorry you are ignorant..." and "you should take some classes" comments. The incident came up shortly thereafter here at ArbCom (brought by another editor), SA was asked to apologize, did not do so, and here we are now. FYI all, I stayed completely out of that Arbcom, at the time I was still convinced that SA would change his behavior.. I was wrong. WNDL42 (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three diffs posted, only one seems to be from SA, and none seems to be particularly incivil. Civility, at least in Wikipedia, does not mean that one has to refrain from commenting on other edits. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I am collecting the diffs -- it will require a couple of hours as I am otherwise engaged (it's a workday). The diffs added are to illustrate the context in which this long and pernicious history of low-level discrediting attacks are taking place. WNDL42 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has SA been informed of this thread? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that an anon IP (130.101.20.xxx) informed SA at 00:12, 26 February of this merit-less thread. R. Baley (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Strike: my bad that was a different poking incident. R. Baley (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)For the record: My comment was removed by Wndl42 here. I restored my comment here. Man, I sure don't like having my comments removed, is that another poke? R. Baley (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem with this diff. He has commented on your edit categorizing it as OR. Something we all sometimes do often unknowingly. The second KWW diff is not by KWW. Anthon01 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above...thanks. WNDL42 (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one would accuse me of being an advocate for SA - this complaint is without merit. I would like to note that this is the Arbitration Enforcement page - SA's ArbCom sanctions don't mention 'discrediting attacks', and I don't believe that discrediting someone's position through discourse is contrary to WP policy, nor should it be. Dlabtot (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would offer a contrasting view here, and suggest it be considered in the context of history here. WNDL42 (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just notified SA. As a note, it is required to notify the other parties of an AE case so that they may be able to voice their opinion. seicer | talk | contribs 19:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another day, another attempt to get me punished. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, when will someone stand up and stop this inane activity? Every 2-3 days, someone comes here and starts complaining that SA was mean to me or wasn't civil in his communications. And the cases are getting weaker and weaker and weaker! If those links are honestly the extent of the misbehavior, this is the worst case of poking that SA has been subjected too. Why doesn't someone stand up and punish these people who are obviously board shopping for an SA block? Baegis (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's annoying to you, but you do understand I get great amusement out of the constant attacks, because it's always the same. Whine about SA. The Anti-Science POV pushers are fun to watch. Back to real science articles.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemarlin's comment is appreciated in that it allows an illustration of the larger point. Normally a comment such as this, accompanied by a personal denigration of the editor as an "Anti-Science POV pusher" would be accompanied by a diff. As it is not, and as Orangemarlin comments frequently in support of incivility, I would present the comment in this context:

Symptoms of groupthink In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).

1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
2. Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".
6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

Seriously, is this why you came here, to insult everyone that does not agree with you about SA's actions? If so, what a phenomenal waste of the community's time! I move to have this whole thing stricken. Baegis (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was merely responding to and contextualizing an unfounded personal attack against me here by Orangemarlin. Would you suggest I should have let it stand? WNDL42 (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baegis, you accuse me above of being "inane" and "obviously board shopping", while I have been patient and patiently awaiting -- and encouraging a change in behavior from SA since he first attacked me MONTHS ago. My patience is exhausted and that is why I am here. WNDL42 (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wndl42 - please don't waste time posting diffs by others. There is a case with remedies SA is subject to, but they do not apply generally to editors in the topic area. If the WP:AE admins need context for his diffs, we know how to use the history page. As one of the recent WP:AE admins to block SA under those sanctions, trust me that the diffs will be read when you finish presenting them. But in posting diffs by others, you are wasting your own time and ours.
• Everyone - SA is subject to the remedies in that case. Debating each other here before the diffs are fully presented is not helpful. I'm sure you all can find better things to be doing. GRBerry 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wndl42 stated in his opening that SA's edits "culminated" with this edit. "Culminated". . . reached it's highest point, the worst of the worst. Everybody is just supposed to sit around while he finds the kitchen sink to substantiate that non-claim? R. Baley (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry, thanks -- this is my first time here. I'm not sure how to address personal attacks leveled against me here and that is the reason (or my excuse, if you will) I give for posting them. KWW was included for reasons I hope to make clear as we progress. I see no way of separating SA's extended discrediting attacks outside of the context of what I see (rightly or wrongly) as his "supporting cast". If there is a different forum for this I will take it there, on your advisement. WNDL42 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of yet, Kww has yet to be informed of the existence of this complaint. Still, he eagerly awaits his outing as a part of a vast conspiracy to insist on proper sourcing and legitimate science. I can imagine the diffs that Wndl42 will provide to bolster his complaint, and, in advance, will say that while I find debating things with Wndl42 to be one of the most frustrating things I have ever done on Wikipedia, I have remained civil. The diff he provided of me in the intro is probably the closest to a WP:CIVIL violation I have gotten to with him, and that still didn't cross the line.Kww (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R. Baley, in the context you present "culminated" it was a poor choice of words on my part. I should have conveyed the idea of "culminated" in the sense of a "last straw". Thanks for helping me clarify. WNDL42 (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R. Baley, I'm sorry but I don't understand your objection to my removing this comment you made, as you had came back yourself to say it was unrelated to the present incident. Can you help me understant why it belongs here? WNDL42 (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me sweetly request, with the utmost civility, that you not ever touch, refactor, or move, or remove my comment(s). The 3rd time will be the charm. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complaints here seem to be without merit. Case dismissed? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Wndl42 you need to relax and have WP:TEA. Go do some edits instead of getting angry with someone because they do not agree with you. Igor Berger (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We should not do that until Wndl42 finishes making the complaint. There is no reason for any discussion by anyone until the "more coming" note is removed by him/her from the list of diffs. GRBerry 21:21, 26 February 2008

• If this is all moot until more diffs are provided, then its best removed until then. What exactly is the point of having it hanging around? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This page must be like a sandbox. . .R. Baley (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: William M. Connolley archived this section, and I have restored it so that it can be closed and archived in the normal manner. If there is no damning evidence, there is no reason for everyone to be commenting here. Go do something else. This is not ANI. John Vandenberg (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I was about to close this as a clear non-violation of Arbcom rulings on SA, but Stephan beat me to it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

blocked and unblocked, has run its course

I am making a formal complaint about ScienceApologist because of his comment at [25]. I am co-director of the AA-EVP [26] 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: [27]

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 [28].

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[29]. 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.[30]

Also, on Talk:Parapsychology#Problems_with_the_revised_lead, SA has been advocating that other users comments be "taken with a grain of salt"[31], 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 [32] - 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).[33]

• 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.[34]

• 02:16, 24 February 2008 --SA apologizes at WQA.[35]

• 02:22, 24 February 2008 --ScienceApologist strikes offending part of comment.[36]

• 02:27, 24 February --TB reposts but with original (00:52) time stamp.[37]

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

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)" [39]. That is identical to saying that I lied. He did not strike that.[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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