Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Enforcement
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rlevse (talk | contribs) at 20:30, 21 January 2008 (here). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Arthur Ellis

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

Can an admin keep David Suzuki on their watchlist and block Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Arthur Ellis on sight? He was banned in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella#Log of blocks and bans but he is continually re-inserting smack into the article. He is evading the page protection by registering new accounts a week early. His latest User:Climateguy was registered a week ago [1] and is re-inserting the same thing as Chucky the barber [2], Overeditor [3], Backtalk, Sockpuppet99, Homeboy99, Hotgirl99, etc. Should I ask for a CheckUser? maclean 21:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only Climateguy and Hotgirl99 weren't already blocked--now they are. I handled the SSP case where the others got blocked, yes this is more Arthur Ellis socketry. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:50, 16 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.


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.
blocked user per below

Per the remedy labelled #7 at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart, surrogates of Derek Smart are banned from editing his article. 3000ad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims on the account's user page to be used by the PR department of his company, and is editing the article. I pointed this out to 3000ad, but was told I was misinterpreting the Arbcom remedy. More eyes would be welcome here. - Ehheh (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:
1) there is no remedy 7, only 1-5 and by surrogate do you mean sock or spa?
2) role accounts and shared accounts are not allowed and I've blocked for that reason and noted it on the case page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are five remedies but they are numbered 1, 2, 3.1, 7 and 8, from the proposed decision page. Thatcher 21:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

User:Zeq

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.

  • Move-warring the article to dubious titles: [4]
  • Edit-warring argumentative language into the lede: [5] [6] [7]
  • 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: [8] [9] [10]

<eleland/talkedits> 16:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I engage in a civil discussion in the talk page[11] 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]

The moves were a bad idea. As for the rest, I will look into it. Thatcher 18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, see here, here and last two sections here. Ceedjee (talk) 18:31, 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: [12] - 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. Thatcher 02:42, 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. Thatcher 02:03, 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]

Add case link to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. Thatcher 22:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified ScienceApologist of this discussion. Cardamon (talk) 03:11, 19 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). -- Levine2112 discuss 23:17, 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. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist continues to add uncivil comments to a space where dispute resolution is underway (diff). -- Levine2112 discuss 00:39, 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. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:25, 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]
And another of the fringe pushers crawls out of the woodwork. Incidentally, are you Anthony Zaffuto? Guy (Help!) 22:24, 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]
Agree with Thatcher that wikidrama is not actionable, I was just making an observation. — Rlevse • Talk • —Preceding comment was added at 20:35, 18 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. Thatcher 22:18, 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. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:54, 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. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:16, 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 support ScienceApologist. We need editors like SA to fight the supporters of pseudoscience. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:10, 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. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:19, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive13&oldid=185949554"