request administrative action against an editor violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against a previously alerted editor who engages in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.
Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with fewer than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.
The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions
All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.
The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:
ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.
A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.
Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction
An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:
The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,[a] or is no longer an administrator;[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
the restriction was an indefinite block.
A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:
a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.
Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.
the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
On Arbitration Committee review
Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:
the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
^The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.
Important notes:
For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
Information for administrators processing requests
Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.
A couple of reminders:
Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.
Closing a thread:
Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
IP user 207.14.129.217, is making personal attacks on the talk page. I have warned the user to stop. Could an uninvolved admin, with no past history with this article, please keep an eye on this talk page. The page is on article probation and this sort of thing is not to be tolerated. I have left a warning on the IP users page, as have others, but the off-topic uncivil comments are continuing. Thanks for your help. futurebird (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ScienceApologist continuing incivility
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
I reviewed this somewhat earlier today. While SA was being needlessly provocational, I don't feel that him being, in turn, provoked, was given enough emphasis. The templatized block notice should have been personalized and of more substantive lengh from the outset, certainly. Accordingly, I, myself, considered shortening the block to 24 hrs, but it looks as if Thatcher beat me to it. Now everyone involved in the dispute please give each other some space (even if we end up being everything and anything at any bleeping time!). El_C03:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that Science Apologist was correct that Rlevse had misinterpreted his statement; he was not talking about edit warring on the article but working on a draft of the lede that was on the talk page. It should have been expressed much more moderately. 72 hours also seems excessive. Thatcher17:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good, but "STAY THE F--- OFF MY TALK PAGE" is pretty unequivocally covered by his editing restriction, and it was his third incident of incivility in one day. Also, the last two -- one edit warring this week and one incivility prior -- were also 72 hours. With escalating blocks and all, his second block under this ruling alone shouldn't have, in my opinion, been any shorter than the previous (or the edit warring one related to this case, again, also this week). - Revolving Bugbear17:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to think out loud here for a moment. We need a policy that says "being bold is good, but don't choose a high-drama occasion for your first foray into a particular area." Extremely controversial AFD discussions (Brandt, Angela, etc) should be close by an admin who regularly handles AFD, not by someone with no experience jumping in. Controversial unblock requests should be handled by an admin who regularly patrols CAT:RFU, not by a borderline involved party. Controversial image discussions should be closed by someone who regularly works in IFD, not by someone unfamiliar with image policy. Yes, every area of admin service is open to any admin, but we would be a lot better off if we would begin involvement in a small way and build up to handling controversial decisions. If you want to be involved with arbcom enforcement, it would be much better to start off by commenting, then move up to closing low-profile cases, then, once you have more experience with it, handle the high-drama cases. --B (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly speaking, I didn't see this as controversial at all. I've seen users get blocked for this sort of behavior after a warning without an ArbCom decision. He was way over the line. Where exactly is the gray area on this one? - Revolving Bugbear18:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bad block, in my view. We don't block people for using four-letter words once in a while. That's not the notion of "civility" we are concerned with. Fut.Perf.☼19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't "for using four-letter words". Please look at the diffs -- "Get the f--- over it"; "Maybe you should block yourself"; "Jesus, what's so goddamn hard to understand about this?"; "Stay the f--- off my talk page" (in caps shouting) ... It's a constant slew of abusive language. - Revolving Bugbear19:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really disagree with the block (maybe the length, but not the block). The ANI thread where he accuses Rlevse of making a threat is definitely a violation of the prohibition against assumptions of bad faith, but his frustration is definitely understandable. --B (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing problematic about "what's so goddamn hard to understand about this?" - I use exclamations like that myself, not too rarely. "Stay the fuck of my talk page" is understandable if somebody has indeed been harassing him on his talkpage after being repeatedly asked to stay out. Etcetera. Yes, our community here at wikipedia values politeness, but it's not collectively thin-skinned to such a ridiculously artificial degree that use of language like this should be regarded as seriously disrupting its peace. Fut.Perf.☼19:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) @ B: I would not be averse to shortening the block. I was originally going to go for 24-48 hours, but lengthened it when I saw he had been blocked a few days ago for edit warring (for 72 hrs) and just a couple weeks ago in connection with the ArbCom (again, for 72 hrs). It seemed to me to be within the phrasing of the ArbCom decision and the spirit of escalating blocks. But like I said, if it needs to be shortened, I won't object.
@ Fut.Perf.: In my opinion here, the sum is greater than the whole of its parts, especially in light of the fact that he has been warned in this regard and recently blocked for it. You, FB, do not have a history for abusive incivility; SA does. - Revolving Bugbear19:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also of note are thesediffs where he essentially says he is going to push the issue until he creates a controversy without concern for the consequences because "when I get blocked, positive things seem to happen". Any possible assumption good faith in reference to the language he used in the above diffs is at least cast into serious doubt by these comments. - Revolving Bugbear19:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was the the one SA claimed was harassing him. The fact is SA was moving a comment I made on Bleep into another section. I asked him not to but he persisted. So I placed a fair warning on his page asking him not to edit war and not to move my comment into another section. He moved that comment 4 times within a few hours, effectively violating 3RR. That is two violation of 3RR on the same day. Anthon01 (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I think a mentor would be more useful in SA's case than just randomly blocking him when someone takes offense. Incivility is a judgement call, after all, and having one person judge it might be better and fairer than the alternative. Adam Cuerdentalk19:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? As an admin I don't see this as an "admin-hate-fest" at all, but instead as much-needed criticism. The criticism is directed at admins who act like me, and I have to admit that he's spot on. Maybe the problem is that you tend to see any expression of criticism or disagreement as "hate" and bad faith. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And? Admins should be made of sterner stuff. I am much more concerned about incivility directed against other contributors in content disputes. Thatcher20:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to point out that Anthon01's complaint is ...(hmmm... what's a civil word for it?)... fiddle-faddle. This edit is the one he objects to, and SA was moving nothing. Anthon01 abruptly changed the subject on a talk page, and SA inserted a non-insulting header to separate it from previous discussion.Kww (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, but you are mistaken. The comment I posted was meant to bring the POV of an uninvolved editor to the attention of Bleep's editors, in the hopes that a resolution would ensue. The comment was also meant to underscore that the same uninvolved editor, who I assumed is not "advocating fringe POV," was echoing the suggestions I had been offering on how to move the page forward. These are some of the same type of suggestions for I which I have been repeatedly accused of being a "fringe POV-pusher." Anthon01 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Block reduced to 24 hours per [3], and evidence that multiple users are busy filing vexatious complaints and taking comments out of context in an effort to get rid of SA (which does not excuse bathroom language and personal attacks, hence the 24 hour duration). This entire area needs to go to Arbcom for expanded authority. Thatcher22:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original complaint that prompted the ban involved SA attacking Rlevse for his comments on WQA. In fact, Rlevse had misinterpreted SA's comment. It is also important to read this diff in context. The article is currently protected over a dispute about the lead paragraph. SA proposed that rather than engage in extensive negotiations over the article lead, he would simply write one on the talk page, and other editors could make changes if they didn't like something. He was then criticized by one editor who complained about his proposal but refused to either improve it or offer an alternative, and by another editor who thought he was advocating edit warring and seems to have completely missed the point that this was a draft version on the talk page. The problem here is that there have been three Arbitration cases on pseudoscience articles which have resulted in only two enforceable remedies, civility parole for SA and probation for Martinphi, leaving all the other editors free to edit war and bait SA. Yes he should not take the bait, but the situation is inequitable. Finally, a 72 hour block for the first violation of his Arbitration remedy is out of line with precedent. Thatcher00:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Rlevse situation. The Rlevse situation was over yesterday. The two I cited in my reasoning to block was from today, and the one I cited to him on his talk page was directed at Anthon01.
Second, I know at least one pseudo-science supporter who has been completely banned from the relevant Wikipedia articles as a result of an ArbCom case: User:Richardmalter.
Third, the first violation was blocked by Rlevse. Since SA already had two 72-hour blocks in the past three weeks, scaling the next block back seemed silly to me.
Like I said, I'm okay with the block being reduced, but please make sure you're referring to what he was actually blocked for. The situation with Rlevse is not relevant -- his actions today are a case of their own. - Revolving Bugbear00:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarity, but you have not recanted or clarified your accusation, that I started the 'spat.' Your assertion regarding me are wrong, as I was forced to bring a conversation that began on SA's talk page onto the Bleep talk page after SA booted me for agreeing quite civilly with an uninvolved editor.[4] Because of SA's action I needed to explain the reason for presenting my comments in that manner, as I felt it would be inappropriate for me to move the uninvolved editors comments (posted on SA's TP) to the Bleep talk page. If you refuse to recant or modify your assertion then please let me know what remedy is available to me. --Anthon01 (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you disagree with Thatcher's observation, it has no real negative consequences for you, so I don't know that a remedy against it is necessarily required. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have little experience on WP, so I don't know how this may effect me in the future. Editors here have a way of piling it on; my concern is that someone here will try to his Thatcher's comment in the future against me. If I'm off base then fine. I appreciate your input. Anthon01 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should have explained in a little more detail, and am sorry if I wasn't clear. This page is used for the purpose of enforcing remedies against users who have previously been sanctioned by an Arbitration Committee decision. There is an allegation that the user has violated instructions given to him or her in the prior decision, and an administrator (Thatcher is currently the most active at this task) evaluates the user's recent behavior to see if there has been a violation of the ArbCom ruling and, if so, how severe it was. Thus, the focus of discussion on this page will generally be on the user who was already a party to the arbitration case, rather than on other users, and it is unlikely that a passing reference to you on this page would be used to impose sanctions against you later on. The reason for my comment, though, was that a very unfortunate tendency on Wikipedia sometimes is to cause disputes to continue and escalate rather than try to resolve them. My hope is that ScienceApologist and the other editors in this thread will now edit in compliance with Wikipedia policies and the prior decisions. If that occurs, then I would not want to see this dispute continued, in any forum, solely to address a peripheral matter. I hope this clarifies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Martinphi
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
I'm willing to accept Martinphi's explanation that he didn't intend his comment mean what several editors thought it meant. Thatcher00:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was meant to move the debate forward. Please, everyone, read it. It was not a put-down, but a real suggestion which gave people a chance to move forward. Further, it was an assumption of good faith on my part. It says nothing uncivil, though it does say that SA is not a neutral editor, which is simply a statement that he is on one side of the debate- I, also, am not a neutral editor in that sense. In other words, it comments on contributions, not contributors. Reporting here is harassment (also see [7][8]). If you read what I wrote assuming that I really meant SA or other editors to do the things suggested (mediation, writing a new lead while taking into consideration the talk page), you will see what I mean. As far as rudeness, I am talking about the many, many edits like this. Also see [9] .
The Arbitration request is a good-faith attempt to bring the situation to the Arbitrators, and was rejected not because it was invalid, but mainly because it was not specific enough. That was a mistake, but the arbitration request is legit.
Anyway, talking about rudeness openly on the Bleep page was an attempt to move the stalled debate forward, and to try and get a useful process going. Both sides have been rude, as I make clear. The process would re-start if my suggestions were followed, and good faith extended. Meanwhile, if there is no AGF, or even a pretense of AGF, things continue as they are, and nothing will get done, just like I said. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ——01:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussion
In what way is it an assumption of good faith to tell SA that he can write a new lead but he will have to promise to not revert any changes and furthermore give up his "right" to edit the article ever again? (I suggest he write such a lead, as a good-faith way to express to the community that he is willing to compromise, and that he will abide by consensus. Also, he will need to give up the option to revert any changes he doesn't like, and give up editing the article directly against or without consensus.) I see very little reason not to ban you from editing the article for 30 days under the terms of your editing restriction. If we going to start tossing blocks at SA for being uncivil when baited, I see no reason to allow you free rein to push his buttons. The ban will be enacted in 24 hours unless there is a consensus of uninvolved admins here that I have got it wrong. Thatcher01:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a fine idea to me, but I would like to see Martinphi prohibited from making frivolous noticeboard complaints. A ban from posting on this board might be in order. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not. We can ignore them or rapidly decline and archive reports that truly have no merit. It still seems early for an outright ban from the noticeboard. Thatcher01:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Riiiiight. Because I'm such a villain that I always laugh like this: "Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha." I don't know what to make of this: it's almost absurd. Anthon01 was basically declaring on my talk page that only a single sentence of criticism should go in the lead of WTBDWK. I was merely pointing out how ludicrous this kind of proscribing is. Question: is there any edit that I've made in the last five years that placed 10K in the lead of any article? After you look through those 20,000 contributions maybe you can tell me whether or not I was being serious. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not appreciate this administrator mischaracterizing a good faith effort to provide an alternative version in talk space, and a report I filed because the user I was upset with told me to go through dispute resolution. What the fuck do you want me to do? Rlevse has all but stonewalled me and I am collecting his constant harranging comments about what I'm doing. I'm sick and tired of it. I would appreciate it if he just stayed out of this stuff because I don't trust him to be fair or neutral. The WQA was made to try to alert people that there was a problem. The comment from the article talk page being referred to is inviting people to edit a version of a lead that I am offering (my version in talk space: not the article's version). It's far from an edit war declaration, and I am so sick and tired of Rlevse misinterpretting my actions and poisoning wells wherever I go in trying to resolve the issues with the massive POV-wars happening at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thatcher, that was not what I meant. That is horrible, and if I said anything similar, SA and everyone has my sincerest apology. I just didn't mean that, but rather that the article shouldn't be edited without consensus, and the new lead should not be under the control of one editor, who would revert anything he doesn't like- not in order to punish SA, but because it just wouldn't work. It wouldn't work for him any more than me.
Anyway, I could defend myself here, but obviously someone has it in for me. I did my best to help out and suggest a way forward, and it is construed as pushing buttons.
God, why would you think I said he should never edit the article again???? What is this???
Again, I'd like a little neutrality here. Not to mention a little fairness and AGF. I won't attempt a detailed explanation, because reading what I wrote in the context of the actual article page and SA's actual suggestions on how to proceed will to a neutral observer show that I was attempting to help, and that only extreme lack of assumption of good faith can say otherwise.
For the record, the article in question is currently locked because while every other editor was participating in an RfC to discuss changes made to the lead, ScienceApologist edit warred to make sure his lead was installed instead, against the consensus of several editors who were participating in the RfC. Martinphi's suggestion may have been a bit extreme, but a 30 day ban for making it? This might be a bit much, especially since it was SA's actions that led to the page being locked. I'm not an admin, but I wanted to comment in case arbitrators weren't familiar with the background behind Martinphi's comment. If this belongs on someone's talk page rather than here, please feel free to move it. --Nealparr(talk to me)01:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant only that he shouln't make nonconsensus edits- like everyone else. I meant also that it wouldn't work to revert anything he didn't like in a proposed edition of the lead. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ——01:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thatcher, It was in context, and should read:
Also, he will need to give up the option to revert any changes to his proposed lead he doesn't like (otherwise the process won't work), and give up editing the article directly against or against consensus. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ——02:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, I did misread the comment somewhat but it is still patronizing and insulting. Presumably you have not agreed to give up your right to revert "nonconsensus" edits made by SA or any other editor of the article. Thatcher02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New section
Let's start over. I misinterpreted Martinphi's comment, although I still don't like it. I need to think some more about a response. And SA's "declaration to edit war" clearly applies to a draft of the article lede he was writing in talk space. So give me a few minutes to collect my wits and see what is really going on here. Thatcher03:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got an email from a party which is friendly, saying that what I said sounded like a command. I do see that, and I did not mean it to. It would have been better not to address SA directly at all. I could have said the same things without speaking directly of him. It was truly my intent to try and bring both peace and progress (I'm not going to pretend I was very hopeful, but it didn't occur to me he would even report it because I didn't think I said anything bad). It certainly wan't my intent to taunt him or push any buttons. But, I can see retrospectively that it could be seen that way, and you and he have my apology.
Just because I want to say this: I have about a 3 hour limit on being angry. I can be very persistent on an issue, but I'm usually not angry after 1-3 hours, often even in life-changing situations. So, I tend to come and edit normally, and assume others are not angry either. The fact is that while my self-control is good, it isn't as good as it looks: if I'd been as angry as people generally must assume, there would be quite a few instances of my (intended) incivility around here. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ——04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added later: I can see how in context of the general dispute it could be seen as my putting myself above the fray and saying how SA should do things if he wants to play. I just didn't mean it that way. I did mean it to be a true and fair analysis of exactly what needed to be done if progress is to be made. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ——05:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may have been trying to propose a solution, but the way it was worded, it could be interpreted as a command. I'm not saying it was, just commenting that thats one possible intepretation. Anthon01 (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Presumably you have not agreed to give up your right to revert "nonconsensus" edits made by SA" Actually, Thatcher, I mainly have: I've been pretty much sticking to 1RR for a long time now, and doing even that almost never. SA has had the run of the articles, and certainly could out-revert me (and has in I believe every article I tried a revert on). ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ——04:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request for clarification
It is unclear whether the arbcom's injunction for Martinphi not to participate in "disruption" was intended to apply solely in article space, or whether it also includes activities such as frivolous use of process and baseless accusations against other users. Specifically, in the Arbitration request noted above Martinphi accused a group of editors of carrying on a campaign of "large and ongoing disruptions." No evidence was provided that the editors in question organized their purported disruptions, nor indeed that their "disruptions" were anything other than attempts to present perspectives with which Martinphi disagreed. Thus it would be useful for arbcom to clarify the scope of its remedy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Any edit judged to be disruptive" and "banned from any page or set of pages" clearly applies to all pages on Wikipedia (also by convention in past cases). For example, evidence cited by the Arbs included edits to user talk and the Featured Article talk page. Do you wish to request enforcement for disruption by Martinphi somewhere? Or just asking for future reference? Thatcher01:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about unwritten tradition. But I don't know why the committee would bother to write it out so carefully if what they really meant was "ban/block him if you feel there is cause." It was obviously very specific and carefully written. I accepted it as written, and endeavored to conform to it. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ——04:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The words were: "Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, they may be banned from any affected page or set of pages." They went on:
"Should they violate this ban, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." Emphasis added. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ——04:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So then, is it your interpretation is that the ruling does not apply to disruption outside of article space? By your reading you'd have to first be banned from a page outside of article space (say, WP:RFAR) and then you'd have to violate that ban before any blocks could be applied, correct? Just trying to make sure everyone is on the same page here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Martin is correct about the manner in which the restriction is to be enforced, if necessary. He may be banned from any page or set of pages he disrupts, and if he violates the ban by editing such pages (or evades it by editing while logged out or using sockpuppets) he can be blocked. Personally, I start with temporary bans and only escalate if problems persist, and blocks for violating any bans similarly start out brief and escalate only if necessary. Thatcher05:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand what you're saying, does this mean arbcom didn't intend to restrict disruption in Wikipedia space (say, frivolous use of process)? Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arritt, that isn't what I said: only that a total ban from WP is not in the Arbitration case, but only blocks after violation of specific-page bans. That is not how it was applied before when I was blocked, as I wasn't banned from a page nor did I violate a ban.
And Thatcher, here is the text of the blocking:
1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week [but only] in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.[11]
I was blocked once, and I still can't see how that block was within the specified process.
I also think that my edit at Bleep was not intended to be anything bad, and I fully intend to not directly engage SA in the future in the way I did there. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ——05:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm trying to clarify whether disruption in Wikipedia-space is relevant here. Your explanation above indicates that arbcom did not intend that any sanction could be applied for disruptive activities such as frivolous use of WP:RFAR, WP:RFC, and such. Correct? (All this is hypothetical of course; I'm sure you would never consider doing such things.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Raymond, the decision says "Any edits" and both Martin and I have used the formulation "any page" so I am confused at your apparent confusion. The restriction applies to all of Wikipedia, including article, talk, project, template, and any other space. (As a matter of personal preference, I would be extremely reluctant to ban anyone from the pages of the dispute resolution process itself, but it could be done under appropriate circumstances.) Thatcher13:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let me state how a hypothetical sequence of events would work. Let's suppose Martinphi brings frivolous action in an RfC. He could then be banned from that RfC. If he continued to edit on that RfC, he could be blocked. If he did not continue editing that RfC, he could bring a frivolous arbcom case. He could then be banned from editing on that arbcom case. If he continued to edit on that arbcom case, he could be blocked. If he did not continue editing that arbcom case, he could bring a frivolous RfC (different from the first RfC). And so on, and on, and on, because it would be a different "page" each time. If there's something wrong with this interpretation, please point out what's wrong. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely why I asked the question in this way. It addresses Martinphi's inclination to interpret Wikipedia policy in a "hypertechnical" sense. I have no doubt that if Martinphi engaged in the behavior I describe above, he'd object strenuously to any sanction. And he'd almost certainly be able to find an admin with a sympathetic ear who would overturn any block. (Again, all this is hypothetical of course.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who is being hypertechnical here? Topic or page bans are at the discretion of uninvolved admins. If an admin thought that Martin had sufficiently misused some of the noticeboards and project spaces to warrant a ban from all of them, the admin could do so. Page bans can be appealed to this page, ANI or Arbcom if the banned editor feels an error has been made. The problem of overturned blocks is not unique to Arbitration enforcement and can also be taken up with Arbcom. Thatcher00:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Excuse me, but what on earth is your point? Where is the rule that says an editor has to sign in before making an edit? As I have just explained on the talk page of that article, my account must have timed-out (or perhaps I just forgot to sign in) when I made that edit. So, unknown to me, my IP address appeared rather than my name. There was no intent to deceive (why would I want to?), and I have not broken the three-reverts rule. Nor was there any "aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility" in my edit, or in anything I wrote in the article's talk page. I explained the reason for my edit when I made it, and it was done on reasonable grounds. So, again, I ask "what's your point?" Meowy17:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You were notified here that you are subject to a limit of one revert per week per article. However, the first removal is just an edit; the IP edit is a reversion, so you have your one revert per week. Thatcher01:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had presumed that this edit was essentially a revert of the prior edit with insignificant other modification for it to be called an "edit". These days, it is standard practise for all parties to perform other minor modifications when doing a revert . John Vandenberg (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I do not consider myself subject to the Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 remedy because, as I have fully explained here on my talk page, there is no mention of Turkey in Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA remedy, and the text administrator placed by Seraphimblade in my talk page bore no relation to that RfA remendy. If, at some point, and as a result of this inappropriate use of the AA2 remedy, I am actually placed under editing restrictions then I will be requesting a RfA with the aim of abolishing the flawed Armenia-Azerbaijan2 remedy for all editors. Meowy20:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At Talk:Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive, I politely requestedMrg3105(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) to refer to "Romania" not "Rumania", while at the same time saying he could call it what he pleased. In his first reply, he used the phrase "as much as you may dislike that personally", although I never expressed a dislike for Russians. I then reiterated my (and sources') preference for "Romania", which prompted a much more incivil second reply (with the edit summary "go for it Rumanians"). Excerpts: "I feel that I can continue to put logic or facts before you, and you will not see it if "it hit you in the face" as the saying goes. You and others are just intent to make the article as Rumanian/Romanian as you can [...] for the sake of Romanian PRIDE you MUST insert as much ROMANIAN CONTENT into the article as possible. Well, go for it, but I will make you work for it, YOU can bet on that. EVERYTHING YOU SAY WILL HAVE TO BE REFERENCED AND SOURCED PROPERLY IN ENGLISH. [...] you go and find your 'majority'". This is completely uncalled-for. I (and others) are attempting to engage in a dispassionate naming discussion, and here comes Mrg3105 to impute sinister motives on my part. I believe this is a violation of the Digwuren general restriction because Mrg3105, "working on topics related to Eastern Europe", has made edits that are "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith", and thus formal action should be taken against him. -- Biruitorul (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this acceptable? Mrg3105 is trying to discredit participants in a move request due to their apparent ethnic origin: "(look at the pages of these users) Biruitorul (very Rumanian), AdrianTM obviously not without Rumanian POV, Turgidson has a "Romanian Barnstar of National Merit", Eurocopter tigre is Rumanian, Roamataa another Rumanian". This appears to be a violation of WP:NPA, as well as a clear attempt to sow divisiveness on national lines. -- Biruitorul (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine by me. I would like to note, though, that I think the last message he left on my talk page is the most offensive one I've ever received on Wikipedia, which is why I am interested in getting others involved. Thanks. Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly)20:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now what happens to the undiscussed arbitrary renaming of the historically non-extant Battle of Romania into the non-WP:UE, non-WP:MILMOS#NAME, and non-WP:ROR compliant Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive, and the subsequent denial of the RM based on arguments that did not apply to the reasons given for the RM?--mrg3105mrg310501:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved requests
These issues have been resolved, and will be automatically archived after three days. Do not post in this section. Add new reports to the top section of the page. If you wish to continue a discussion that has been marked as resolved, please contact the administrator who marked it closed.
Back to the Troubles ArbCom
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
no action needed
I have placed Aatomic1 (talk·contribs) under probation under the provisions of the The Troubles for further revert-warring on Birmingham pub bombings. Please note the history of this editor with this article, this is approximately the fourth or fifth time he's been sanctioned for edit-warring on this article, and less then a month after the previous probation for edit-warring (which was endorsed by ArbCom) expired. I am pre-emptively bringing this up, because of the history of this editor, and his numerous complaints after the last probation was placed on him. SirFozzie (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Derek Smart
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
Ah, blockable without the remedy anyway. But it also violated that remedy because it directly edited the article page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
no action, see comments by Thatcher
Zeq was banned from Palestinian exodus and placed on probation a little less than two years ago. (case) He's recently been quite disruptive on Palestinian right of return, which is closely related to the Palestinian exodus.
Edit-warring argumentative language into the lede: [15][16][17]
Edit-warring a distinction between real "refugees" and descendants of refugees, despite a mountain of sources (see Talk:Palestinian_right_of_return#RfC:_Descendants) showing that this distinction is not widely adopted, and it specifically disclaimed by scholars of international law: [18][19][20]
Actually I engage in a civil discussion in the talk page[21] and avoided edit warring. for example when my edits are reverted I have asked on the talk page that they would be re-inserted and indeed in some case they were (by others, among them the revrter) and in some cases they were not. The subject is indeed a tough subject and different POVs need to be represnted. Indeed I was requested on the talk page to better ex[plain (in the article) the Israeli view point. SI encourage everyone to read my 2nd arb com case in whcih they clearly allow some leeway in tough subjects like this one. If a reviewing admin disgaree with my behavior I would sugget they look at others on this page who have been engageing in stream of reverts and plaese let me know - I will provide diff to back up my comments. Thank You.Zeq (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS the diffs above are legitimate edits - there is no edit war. (clearly in his point #3 above in which User:Eleland claims that my edits do not fit what exprest in int'l law have decided he is not making a distinction between a content dispute (a valid dispute in wikipedia) and behaviour which is edit war. (I have not engage in such behaviour but Eleland has a problem with my views not my behaviour)
I have tried different attempts at compromise - again some accepted some don't. I have not done repeated edits - unlike others in this article who have reverted many times. Zeq (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree that at least one of the moves were not a good idea. (the 2nd was made a redirect: [22] - both moves are a good faith attempt to fix a NPOV problem that still exist. After two attempts (not the same one - I tried alternatives) I have accepted the suggestion on talk to keep the name as it is. In any case since that time there were many edits and discussions in this article - all are legitimate edits. There is a big difference between content dispute and edit war. This was not edit war on my part - I avoided reverting although my edits are routinly reverted on this article.
Maybe it is about time to consider the fact that I have been under probation for a long time. Other editors may think that any dispute with me, any revert on their part give them some advantage in the cosntent dispute since I am on probation. If anyone should be snactioned about this article it is those who revert it frequntly and not me - who suggests alternatives to fix inherent problems in this article. btw, if anyone wants to mediate this tough article he/she is more than welcome. As part of my first arbcom case there was a promise by one of the arbitors to mediate the dispute in the exodus article but enfortunatly it proven too tough. Maybe applling an equal playing field to all editors will go a long way to create a more civilized editing environment to all. Zeq (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response The diffs given in the report above show 6 edits by Zeq to the article lede over 20 days, only two on the same day. It's not much on which to base a finding of disruption. There seems to be productive discussion on the talk page and a fair amount of prickliness by several editors, and I don't see that Zeq has pushed his own view to the point of unreasonableness, after he's reverted a couple of times he stops and talks about it but the same is true of others. I don't see any basis for a page ban at this time. Zeq is correct that the new broad discretionary sanctions place all editors of these topics on the same equal footing, more or less. Hopefully you can move forward with grace, dignity and mutual self-respect. Thatcher02:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ScienceApologist's RTV
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
Enough is enough. "This poll sucks" is not uncivil under any meaning that I can think of. I'm also not going to take action on a complaint about a comment made 10 days ago, stricken 9 days ago, removed, and then restored. End of message. Thatcher02:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I moved this here as it is a separate issue from the one it was file under to "reopen". I also renamed it from "Request to reopen Arbitration Enforcement". — Rlevse • Talk • 20:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ScienceApologist, after receiving at 72-hour block for edit warring on What the Bleep Do We Know!?, applied for the Right to Vanish. His user page and talk page were blanked accordingly. However, ScienceApologist has not vanished. At all. Instead, he has returned to Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!? where dispute resolution is underway and his first act was one of incivility. Please see this (diff). I, in turn, removed the incivility and posted (IMHO) a very civil message on ScienceApologist talk page (diff). This posting was immediate deleted by ScienceApologist with an edit summary stating: "rv POV pushing by Levine2112" (diff). This was followed by a pretty terse posting at my talk page (diff). -- Levine2112discuss23:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could always try asking your pseudoscience and fringe POV-pushing friends to stop baiting him. That would probably work - unlike pretending your personally-directed rudeness is civil and his more general testiness is not. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was no baiting involved. ScienceApologist came out of "retirement" to make the uncivil actions I detail above. Can you please elucidate what you mean by my "personally-directed rudeness". A diff would help. Thanks. -- Levine2112discuss00:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-Oh, seems to be a lot of tag team baiting and POV pushing occuring over here, lead by (not unexpectantly - given the editor in question and the subject matter) Levine2112. His postings here should be seen as they are in various other forums (ANi, WQA) as gaming the system to subdue an editor that doesn't agree with his and his posse's POV. Seen it before and probably will continue to see it until the Community decides to stop it. Shot info (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has around six million editors. Of that six million, Levine2112 is in the top five worst possible candidates to be correcting SA on his behaviour or bringing complaints here. I'm sick to death of fringe bullshit POV-pushers baiting SA and then coming running to mommy when he gets riled. If they can't stop obsessively pushing this bullshit - which long experience indicates they can't - then they need to learn to work constructively with those who hold a mainstream POV, not constantly pick fights with them and then complain about the fight. In short, Levine and his pals (and most especially Martinphi) need to stop spitting in the soup. Now. Both Martinphi and Levine should be banned fomr complaining ab out SA, as vexatious litigants. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I asked JzG for was a diff justifying his assertion of "personally-directed rudeness" from me toward SA. He has not provided any, but rather demonstrated his own brand of personally-directed rudeness toward me. JzG, please consider WP:NPA. I believe your attacks to be unwarranted. I am again requesting a diff(s) from you which demonstrates how any of the attacks you have launched onto me here are justified. You can provide that to me here, or preferably in a more appropriate forum. -- Levine2112discuss20:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop spitting in the soup. As I said, of the six million or so registered Wikipedians, you are in the top handful of worst possible candidates to be correcting SA on his behaviour. There is essentially no chance whatsoever that he would perceive your involvement as anything other than baiting, and if you had an ounce of self-criticism in your entire body you would realise this. For you to be doing this is basically trolling. Stop doing it. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rlevse and Thatcher below that this is a minor infraction. What I don't understand is why Guy is accusing Levine but refusing to provide diffs to support his accusation. Guy, could you explain how Levine is baiting SA? Are you suggesting that Levine should avoid the Bleep talk page since SA would get upset by his involvement there? Anthon01 (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I consider your characterization uncivil. Please retract your statement, and please apply WP:CIVIL in addressing me. Are you going to answer my question? You've accused Levine; please provide diffs. Thank you. Anthon01 (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying Levine2112 is innocent, but ScienceApologist needs to learn to control his responses as he is being uncivil as the diffs prove. It is also a fact that he RTV'd has his pages deleted, came back, posted a note about being tired of wikidrama, and resumed editing in within a day. Now that is wikidrama. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and Levine needs to learn not to escalate it, which is what he did. Although I have a nasty suspicion that said escalation was deliberate. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, SA can be blocked for incivility, and we can read that pretty broadly if needed to prevent disruption, but "this poll sucks" is not what the committee had in mind, I think. Think of this board as an emergency room; you don't have to wait for a compound fracture before filing a report, but don't report every hangnail either, please. Thatcher22:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. My hope is that there won't be any emergencies causing me to bring the situation here again. Thanks for the attention which you have given this. -- Levine2112discuss23:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My hope is that there won't be any emergencies causing me to bring the situation here again. The diff you supplied is an emergency? Seems like the POV pushers will be looking to forum shop now. It seems the Community is tired of your crying wolf over every little papercut... Shot info (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. As Thatcher informed, it was not an emergency. Note from what you quoted that I said "any emergencies" rather than "any more emergencies". Meaning I wasn't calling the incident which lead me here an "emergency" and that I am hoping there won't be any emergencies. -- Levine2112discuss01:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OMG the irony. And sure enough, you forum shopped. Predictable - and your crying wolf is noted by all it seems. Keep up the good work! Shot info (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not involved in any of these cases that are ongoing but there is a lot going on. I think another editor retired from being an editor on the same day that Scienceapologist was set to retire. I just want to say that I am glad that SA decided not to retire. I watch all of these boards to learn more about policies and to see what is going on here at Wikipedia. I agree with the comments made by Masterpiece2000. My feel for all these on going actions is that alternate/fringe editors are trying to get science related editors blocked/banned or so frustrated that they will leave. The sad part to me is this seems to be working. There needs to be a way to allow all editors to be involved without a gang like mentality which is what I believe is going on. This can be seen by the list of editor involvement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. This is of course my own personal observations as an outsider but I think all of these complaints should be closed and that warnings should be placed to remind editors that group POV pushing is not acceptable. Thanks for taking the time to listen to me. --CrohnieGalTalk13:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I am missing something, this discussion seems to have moved away from the question. Did the editor use "right to vanish" as a means of "gaming the system"?
I am here because of a related ArbCom action involving a personal attack and threat by ScienceApologist in which SA was instructed remove the offensive remarks and apologize, as a means of avoiding a block. The issue remains unresolved due to inaction on SA's part. In the context of user SA's invocation of RTV, I had his comments removed. Now, upon SA's un-vanishing, I have restored them and consider that matter as yet unresolved. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Holy smokes, you restored offensive comments that had been deleted?? Ladies and gentlemen, here we have a textbook case of WP:POINT, one that so perfectly fits the definition that it ought to be included as one of the enumerated examples there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No SA did not use RTV as a way of gaming the system, he reacted in a common way to a block brought on by an inappropriate reaction on his part to inappropriate but unsanctioned behaviour from POV-pushers, and the complaints are almost all brought by those self-same POV-pushers. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Confirmed Checkuser. Restrictions notified. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)