Mattjs (talk·contribs) has also begun editing Talk:Sex tourism verbosely and aggressively [2][3], [4], fighting similar battles, disputing the definition of sex tourism[5]. Like KyndFellow, he argues his own expertise trumps cited information [6]. (In that same diff, he also insinuates that I'm a Christian and therefore biased, as KyndFellow did a while ago, tho I don't have a diff handy). While he hasn't begun linking The Sly Traveler, he gratuitiously (and repeatedly [7][8]) promotes Pattaya as a sex tourism destination.
User:Mattjs seems to be editing from an IP address in different country than KyndFellow[9]. Unless his early edits[10], concurrent with User:KyndFellow (who seems to have stopped editing), are from the same IP block, I cannot demonstrate that these edits come from the same computer. KyndFellow self-identifies as a traveller, however, and has a history of using puppets.
Summation
It seems unlikely that one week after KyndFellow is banned and then spotted recruiting meatpuppets, a user behaving in so similar a fashion would arise.
I was a participant in the dispute.
I'd wait longer to gather evidence, but he's also really unpleasant (scroll to the bold-lettered "lay bare" on that one) to work with. And the aggressive, repetitive Talk page argument just pours out of him.
Eh. Maybe not. I was expecting Mattjs to do something he hasn't yet done, so he's probably not who I thought he was. How do I withdraw this request? Whatever problems I have with him will be dealt with some other way. / edgarde15:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it doesn't hurt to let people know that the article has been the subject of an arbitration case; at the very least, a bit more caution is a good idea. This report will get archived in a couple of days and if you think there is a new or ongoing problem you can report it then. Thatcher13101:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nrcprm2026 (talk·contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: here.
James Salsman, aka Nrcprm2026, has been repeatedly warned against editing articles relating to depleted uranium, but continues to do so in violation of his Arbcom ban. He has done so with a number of sockpuppet as well [11].
Blocked for 48 hours. He can appeal his case if he wants, but that doesn't give him the right to edit in the mean time. If he makes reasonable suggestions on the talk pages, please consider incorporating them into the articles. Come back here with further violations, if any. Thatcher13105:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This edit made by 209.217.79.235, is a clear violation of his ban, but also is a legal threat, personal attack (calling an editor an "asshole"), and a violation of privacy (he should not be reprinting what he claims is someone's private email or any part of it)
What do you suggest? The second edit looks like a minor factual correction, but the apparent contempt for the ban is an issue which needs to be addressed. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At Talk:Rachel Marsden Fred Bauder has noted that the IP is also used by an innocent bystander. Generally Arthur Ellis edits from short-term IP addresses that he can reset if he wants to, so the most we can do is a 24 hour block anyway. He certainly has contempt for the ban, and for the whole arbitration process in general. There are ways to address his concerns besides editing the article himself, but is is unwilling to avail himself. Other than resetting the 1 month ban timer and reverting his edits, there is not much that can be practically done. I do think that Mark Bourrie, Rachel Marsden and Warren Kinsella should be permanently s-protected, but other than that... Thatcher13115:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the trouble-making can be settled by a semi-protect, as you suggest, and yes, the clock should be reset for each block. There may be at some-point that we may bring the question of a community-ban before ANI. Will any of this make him stop? Maybe not. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. Bucketsofg18:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that semi-protecting a number of the affected articles, together with a thorough checkuser, has solved the Ellis problem for a while, if only temporarily. Another article that he's had an interest in the past was Pierre Bourque (journalist), and he seems to be using a National Library computer to make trouble there. A semi-protect might be in order here. Bucketsofg18:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people use the library but not many of them are likely to point out to the one anti-Kinsella editor who is not himself that his latest edits were reverted. Thatcher13119:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, had no clue this was against your policies, as Ian's response was not derogatory or what have you, I found it entirely appropriate to add his response to the discussion. Had his response been derogatory or inappropriate, I certainly would not have added it to the talk page on that basis alone. Also, I understood that Ian was banned from editing the ARTICLE, I did not see and did not understand why he was banned from editing the talk page, or for that matter, why he was really banned at all. The reasons made for the ban where very unspecific and his recent ban appears to have been triggered more from frustration of listening to our unresolved complaints against SA than anything else. It will be interesting to see the action taken against me for this, as I had no clue I was breaking any of your rules. -Ionized 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC) p.s. Ah, I am reading above now and see- "and their talk pages." Didn't notice that before, oops. Why don't you simply just go in and erase the response I pasted there, rather than make this into a bigger ordeal than it needs to be? Fact is I figured it was a mistake that he was banned from the talkpage, as I understood bans to be on articles not talkpages, just as is the case for one Mr. Eric Lerner. The only thing I thought I was circumventing was an apparent mistake, and assumed it would be corrected. -Ionized01:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a mistake, Ionized, could you go ahead and correct it? The last thing I want is for this to be used as more fuel for the fire. If you would remove your inclusion of Ian's comment, that would go a long way toward helping restore good faith. --ScienceApologist01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will make appropriate changes to the talk page, as I agree with what Ian just posted on my talk page- "I may be banned from commenting, but the information is not. You are welcome to use the information, as you see fit." Hence I will put what he contributed into my own words for inclusion in the talk page. -Ionized02:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is wholly unacceptable in my book. Instead of removing the commentary, you simply edit a few words? Ian is banned from the talkpage. Your actions continue to look like you are trying to circumvent this. --ScienceApologist02:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you would disagree with Ian's implication that the information itself is not banned from the talk page? So we are banning information and not necessarily a single user? -Ionized02:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument of semantics and seems to me to be a violation of the letter and spirit of the ban. I don't think the point of banning somebody from a page is that his posts can be offered by another user who aribtrarily deems the text to be "information". --ScienceApologist02:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After considering what Ian said in the dif you posted, I honestly agree that I have every right to use the information he provided. The only problem you seem to have is that you know Ian is the one that provided the information. -Ionized02:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it "information" and how is this any different from you posting for Ian as you did initially? The majority of the post is exactly the same. --02:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
How is it 'not' information? I checked into into what was provided and it was substantial, hence worthy of inclusion. -Ionized02:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is all silly. Whether it is "information" or not doesn't matter because the ban does not make an exception for "information". The boilerplate does not say "User:Iantresman is banned from this page unless his friend User:Ionized thinks that some of the things he wants to post are "information"." --ScienceApologist02:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I stand by my principles in this matter, the information provided was valid and substantial, relevant to the ongoing discussion on the page, was not derogatory or demeaning in nature, hence I find it appropriate to include, regardless of the ban against the user that provided me with the information. I will now let my comments rest, and await decision by administration on the matter. If indeed it is decided that the content is inappropriate, surely they will see fit to delete it. -Ionized02:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meat puppet? You enjoy this don't you? I act on my own grounds, I happen to agree with Ian's statement that the information itself is not banned. How does this make me a Meat Puppet? Regardless, as stated above, I stand by my decision, with no malice intended. Think of it what you will, I am not acting as a meat puppet, as this is a single incident, and reasoning was stated for my actions. -Ionized 02:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC) p.s., after reading about 'meat puppets', I don't see how you are able to claim I am one. I am my individual self, I am not Ian posing as someone else. I am exactly who my user page says I am. If the admins check my IP and compare to Ian's, you will find that we live in entirely different countries, as I am in the usa and I believe Ian is somewhere in Europe. -Ionized 02:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC) p.s. perhaps that meant sock puppet. By meat puppet, looks like you mean that you think Ian got me to join Wiki in order to help circumvent his ban. This is clearly false, as I found Wiki sometime in early 2003, and created an account near the end of 2003 I believe. It looks like I was here before Ian. -Ionized03:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Posting information on behalf of a banned user is a blockable offense, see WP:BAN#Dealings_with_banned_users. Although this policy deals with permanently banned users, I think it is reasonable to extend the policy to bans under probation. Where a user has been banned from a page because his contributions have been deemed disruptive, it makes sense to broadly interpret the ban to prohibit the user from continuing to contribute through a proxy or third party. The appropriate response would not be to block the third party, but to apply the same page bans to the proxy as to the original account (and then to block if the third party ignore the page ban). Reposting verbatim comments of a banned user is clearly prohibited. Taking a person's "suggestions" or "information" and making the edits yourself could certainly be interpreted as acting as a proxy for a banned user. It would be a judgement call on the part of the admin reviewing the situation. I decline to consider that judgement at this time, since I'm giving you a free pass on this first incident for not being aware of the rules. The best way to avoid being caught in a ban not of your own making would be to ignore Ian's "information" until his ban expires and he is free to edit in his own name. If you decide to edit the article as he suggested, you leave yourself open to an undesirable outcome.
Ian, you were banned from the article and talk page for disruption. You say you do not condone anyone circumventing your ban, but it looks to me like you are clearly trying to influence or even direct the editing of the article during your ban, which in your case is a blockable offense. Again, it's a judgement call. If you don't want to leave yourself open to the possibility of a block, keep your information to yourself until your ban expires. Go edit somewhere else. If you persist in trying to influence the article while you are banned from it, you may be blocked per your probation. Cheers. Thatcher13104:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made a response on my talk page. I would like to state here that I doubt Ian was really trying to influence me, but his reasoning did make sense to me so I acted according to my own judgment of the matter. To further punish Ian for an apparent mistake that I made, seems inappropriate, especially considering that ScienceApologist is now in agreement with us over what we where debating in the first place (keeping the title of the article as Plasma_cosmology). This is an 'after the fact' attack, apparent malice intended against myself and Ian. However I am willing to let this go if the other parties are as well, it seems more reasonable to move on to improving the article now that some consensus was reached by SA concerning the article title. My principles disallow me from removing what I added to the talk page, especially considering the entire situation as having been already resolved and moved past. Again, thanks for your more unbiased and cool headed response Thatcher. -Ionized04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second response After further thought (and see the KyndFellow case above) I'm not sure the issue is as obvious. Certainly if Ian's ban for disruption arose from a particular argument, and another editor jumped in an continued the same argument, I would want to apply the same article ban for the same reason. But if Ian wants to provide information on another topic, and another editor can add it without being disruptive, maybe it should be allowed. The third party editor would obviously take responsibility for anything he posted. If the edits were disruptive and confrontational, the third party editor would get blocked or banned. If the edits were reasonable, other editors would have to deal with their content in the normal way without regard to their source (no automatic reversion). I think both views are logically supportable, I don't know what the arbitrators have in mind. I have asked for clarification at WP:RFAR. Thatcher13105:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would help (and indeed, I think it should be a requirement), that not only are the reasons given for my ban for each article, but diffs are provided demonstrating where a contravened (a) policy (b) my ArbCom case. I have asked this of Bucketsofg, but he has not, or won't provide the information. See my Arbitration Enforcement Comments
Comment - I've had some involvement here. Ian is definitely being disruptive, but SA is also capitalising on his ArbCom restrictions. I don't believe SA has stepped over the line yet in terms of content, but I will drop him a note. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what? Your disruption? Look at the thread in Talk:Wolf effect - how many times did I invite you to come up with compromise wording? The closest you got was to say that SA would not accept a compromise. How do you know? You never offered one. I spent quite a lot of time trying to get some kind of agreement there, on the basis that you assured me that you were not trying to push a fringe theory, but since the only form of words you would accept is the one the proponents of that frnige theory explicitly rely on, and which is therefore the core of the problem, I could see why SA was unhappy about it. SA has no particular reason to want to fix the fact that your edit was not made. I don't care either way. You're the one who wants the change, but after many rounds of verbal ping-pong your final answer appears to be a refusal to compromise. Which is pretty much the canonical definition of disruption. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, not offering a compromise of some text, is not disrupting. I gave good reasons of my actions throughout.
I disagree with your assessment about "pushing fringe theories" (again, this is not disruption). The description of the Wolf effect as a redshift (or blueshift) is NOT fringe. It is verifiable in peer reviewed papers, by the experts and in textbooks. That is how it is described, and Wikipedia should reflect that. However, you would be correct that this new redshift mechanism has been suggested as a redshift in astronomy by a smaller number of people. Again, this is verifiable and attributable (as I had it in the article originally). SA's view that the Wolf effect is criticised in astronomy is not supported by ANY references whatsoever; we have only SA's word for it.
Refusal to compromise is not disruption; it may be non-constructive (which is not the opposite of disruptive). SA has also "refused to compromise", and yet he's not even criticized, let alone asked. --Iantresman21:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is if you sit there insisting on having your way, on an article where you've been told by ArbCom that insisting on your way is disruptive. Why do you have such a problem with suggesting a compromise form of words? I've said before, SA has no reason to want to think of one, he's happy with the article as-is, you want it changed, you've been told that what you want is not acceptable (for credible reasosns, whether you like them or not) and in the end it's you who needs to come up with an idea, since you are the one who cares. It's really not so very much to ask, is it? Guy (Help!) 22:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the article arleady does precisely that. Frequency shift, we observe as red due to relative position, accounts for some discordant redshifts. Yup, fine. The only thing we don't do is help with the plasma crowd's quote-mining. So, what, precisely, do you want to say, bearing in mind that baldly calling it a "new redshift mechanism" is rejected due to the misuse of this text by quote-mining POV pushers? Guy (Help!) 23:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One step at a time. Forget about discordant redshifts (for now). I agree, that's "fringe". Forget about (for now) the Wolf effect and astronomy, that's another issue. We're discussing the general description of the Wolf effect.
So we described the Wolf effect as a frequency shift because most sources say so. We reflect what we read (and its verifiable)?
Likewise if most sources described the Wolf effect as a redshift, we should report that too?
And if sources question that the Wolf effect is a redshift, or are critical, or suggest it is a confusing term, we report that too? --Iantresman00:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the ArbCom remedies which requested that ScienceApologist is "cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines"[18], and in addition to the issues mentioned earlier, I would like to raise the following issues:
The article on Immanuel Velikovsky is known to be very controversial. Despite WP:BOLD reminding us that ".. updating pages" does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories", I believe ScienceApologist has done just that under the IP address 216.125.49.252.
While this is probably not a major problem in itself, it still ignores the guidelines, and more importantly includes several statement which clearly contravene NPOV "Fairness of tone" with unsubstantiated statement that fail WP:V (described here)
Rather than discuss these issues, ScienceApologist accuses me of:
"Velikovskian POV-pushing" (unfounded)
"conflict of interest" on the grounds that I publish a CD-Rom on catastrophism (that would be like me suggesting that someone had a conflict of interest because they had an interest in the subject)
I am "a leader in the catastrophist movement"[19] (unfounded and not relevant)
The last two are ad hominems (they address the person, not the edits).
One of the other editors also considers ScienceApologist's approach to be "rather bad behaviour"[20]
To restored statements for which no reliable source is provided, and to boldly state them as his opinion, is not the way to create a reliable article.
Ok, just by looking at the header, I can see that there are problems, this is the fifth such complaint. All are very recent. This issue does not seem to be resolving itself, therefore I recommend that this be taken to ARBCOM for a reconsideration of the issues at stake here. The absolute most I can do is CautionScienceApologist, for disruption. I don't think anything is going to get resolved in the current state of affairs. —— Eagle 101(Need help?)02:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there is nothing enforceable against ScienceApologist in either arbitration case. I can't tell if this is wikilawyering and abuse of process by Ian or if there is some merit; determining that would require a thorough look into SA's contribs, which can't have a payoff since there is no enforceable remedy. If you really want to apply coercion (blocks and threats of blocks or article bans) to ScienceApologist, you will have to try and reopen the case. Be aware that if you do so they will also consider your behavior. Thatcher13104:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion moved to the talk page. I remind users and admins that the purpose of this page is to deal with enforcement requests. Extended discussion of perceived slights should probably be avoided completely, or (if someone absolutely must get something off their chest) the talk page is available. Bucketsofg13:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The account is five days old (to get around the semi-protection that this article is now under), knows the details of my history with Ellis[21], and seems interested primarily in Warren Kinsella.
Summation
Clearly a sock. No need for a check-user in this case, I think. I'd block him but am in a conflict-of-interest.
Huaiwei has been edit-warring over certain articles recently, the most recent being Singapore Changi Airport, without any attempt at discussion whatsoever. In my opinion, this is highly disruptive.
"5) Huaiwei (talk • contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation indefinitely. Any administrator, in the exercise of judgement for reasonable cause may ban them from any article or talk page which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." Edit-warring is disruption by inappropriate editing.
Summation
I think an article ban is needed on Huaiwei at Singapore Changi Airport. He was also involved in an earlier dispute at that article where he refused to accept results of mediation he chose not to take part in. Shows no signs of co-operating. – Chacor14:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe this needs a relook. No party has volunteered to make comments in the discussion page with regards to the existance of a certain destination, but there are comments in the edit history by all parties. I have since brought this up in the relevant talkpage (even as you yourself reverted the article without commenting in the talkpage either). As for the mediation case, I am quite obviously not the only one who is disputing the way the mediation process was conducted. Is the voicing out of such objections a probation violation? Meanwhile, I would greatly appreciate if a notification be placed in my talkpage concerning such notifications, as clearly required above.--Huaiwei15:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks of this nature can be characterized as a "disruptive" edit, and thus is bannable.
Summation
Personal attack by an editor restrained from editing the page by the ArbCom as an SPA, most likely a sock of the permanently banned User:ParalelUni, who was banned for grotesque personal attacks. Seems to be a rather static IP, since it has made disruptive edits relating to archiving inappropriately and blanking vandalism back in December.
I have no objection to another administrator reviewing this situation. Such other administrator should consider the matter independently and should feel free to take whatever action, whether less or more severe than indicated above, he or she feels appropriate. For the record, I do not believe I demonstrated any bias against 67.177.149.119 in the discussion on AIV that is being referred to, but simply indicated that the user's personal attacks are unacceptable. I did make a negative remark about banned User:ParalelUni, a subject of the referenced arbitration case, and would like to ask 67.177.149.119 if you are the same person as ParalelUni. Newyorkbrad02:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved administrator, I wholeheartedly agree with Newyorkbrad's decision. Any further disruption will lead to a ban from these pages, and a block. Ral315 (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TDC is not allowed more than one content revert in a 24-hour period, however he deleted reports of legitimate accuracy disputes from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Accuracy disputes twice today, just a little more than an hour apart.
TDC is also required to discuss his reverts, which he did not do even after I invited him to do so on the talk page. This must be at least his seventh such offense, against me alone.
The edit summaries in the diffs supplied above [27][28] suggest that there is some dispute as to whether James' probation allowed him to include links to an article that he is banned from. Bucketsofg05:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that a warning is in order for both User:TDC and James S.. TDC should not have made the second revert. However, James is banned from Depleted Uranium and associated articles, and by making a link to that article, it could be argued that he was creating an association between the page that he was editing and the depleted uranium page, thereby accidentally violating his own parole. Bucketsofg06:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James S. is not prohibited from editing the talk pages of DU-related articles. I would say that listing the articles as "accuracy disputes" is within the range of permitted activities, since it would allow him to call attention to his complaints on the talk page. I think TDC was wrong to revert James at all, much less twice, but it is an understandable difference in interpretation of the ruling. Thatcher13116:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the edit was relevant to Sathya Sai Baba (which, because the article does not even mention Sathya Sai Baba, it wasn't), then I fail to see how an edit made on 9 January 2006 could be worthy of any action in relation to an arbitration finding made on 5 September 2006. Sam Blacketer18:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a strong suspicion this banned editor is making a comeback to the Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_Organisation article. I have posted an analysis of the situation here [29]. Certainly there is now a regular, sustained pattern of disruptive editing taking place to the article by single-edit IPs.
The article and user suspected of this activity is currently banned and the article under probation [30].
A request for semi-protection of the page has been recently rejected [31] however the IP attacks are more frequent now.
The IPs look like him, I'm not sure about the user. If it is a continued problem, you may need to ask for a checkuser first. The 195 editor was in England and these IPs are all Japan, so it could be open proxies or he has recruited someone; either way, the edits are banned. Since I can't block every Japanese ISP from Wikipedia, I've semi-protected the article. Thatcher13108:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SqueakBox (talk·contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of personal attack parole extended to include unwarranted assumptions of bad faith. The final decision in their case is here.
This editor has begun a campaign against editors attempting to improve the article Brown people. In numerous places on the article talk page, the editor mischaracterizes the article and contributions of other editors (including an administrator) as "racist", "OR", "POV", "trolling", etc. with no evidence provided and no discussion of improvement other than to destroy the article.
Edit summary says (rm blanking of ref without expalantion merely to fit your rascists conceptiosns)
Summation
This is only a sample of the general incivility and veiled personal insults towards other editors of the article by this user. This also includes bad faith assumptions on the article's recent AfD page where I was called a troll, ignorant, and arrogant. I have been a participant in the AfD, article, and talk page, but have decided not to improve this article for now in light of the abuse I have been taking there.
Not sure what this is doing here as my arbcom is related to Zapatero, nor why this user has chosen to harrass me. What he fails to point out tis that a number of editoprs feel the same way as me and are unhapy at Ju's aggressive approach, of which this is clearly a part. He claims that because I criticise the article I am criticising him wherreas the only critixcisms of him have concernecd his personal behavious. He says here he is reporting me becasue he has lost his temper and then claims he is making a better wikipedia and I am not. He also has a [patronising attitude that is simply not wikipedia. I really dont know what hios problem is but if he wants mediation I am happy to go for it. I dont believe there is a case to answer here, SqueakBox22:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well what do you suggest then? I was not attacking users I was attacking the article and maybe Americans in general but clearly not editors either in general or specifically, I also understood that case was entirely involving Zapatero, SqueakBox23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following examples of such on {{911ct}} may indicate a problem. May I suggest the ban apply to all 9/11 articles and related XfDs, if a ban is chosen.
(A few dozen edits to the template on January 18, eventually leading to a version similar to bov's
11:16, January 23, 2007 (alternate theory / jersey girls is a group supporting alternate claims. hence they are under the title of supporting alternate claims.)
More or less the same revert.
23:17, January 25, 2007 (rv. seems Arthur Rubin is misunderstanding. Noone is sating CT doesnt stand for Conspiracy Theory, just that templates covers a dif topic better)
He's found another damaged version to revert to.
23:26, January 25, 2007 (rv seems you arent paying attention. This was just addressed in my comment. the templates contents cover the new name better then the old one ... Please read before reverting)
same version, and still no justification
And a few related edits removing the template from articles it belongs on and adding the template to articles it doesn't belong on.
[36]
This shows the concensus[37], note the edits were made before Arthur Rubin stepped in to say he will not participate in any discussion of renaming. Since he decided he will not even attempt to discuss his position, it was noted and we moved on. Arthur can you explain how all those reverts were against you? Are you honestly attempting to revert war then come here to have some penalty enacted? Sounds like trying to game the system since your next revert would have been a 3RR violation. Arbcom enforcement isnt for revenge, or for going around 3RR. I would like to point out the only people supporting Arthur Rubin is Tom Harrison, which as an admin has been edit warring on the page as well. Myself, Lovelight, Bov and Fiddle Faddle all support a change to alternate theories. Arthur Rubin and Tom Harrison keep revert warring to change it, oddly enough Arthur Rubin has voted to have the template deleted, so I am afraid of the intent of his edits as well, but I have continued to AGF and not accuse him of anything. Just to point out if its wondered why I have so many mentions here, they are all from members of the former GabrielF Noticeboard which I contributed to having moved, which they arent happy about. Tom Harrison, Mongo, TBeatty, Morton Devonshire, Arthur Rubin, Derex, rogerd, etc. So do not be surprised if MONGO interjects to give an "outside opinion" or Tom for that matter. --NuclearZer011:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also this is a content dispute, note him pushing his content based points, of if they should be called "researchers, since they research, or members etc. This is not the place for content based issues Arthur Rubin. I told you Thatcher131, the Arbcom enforcement page is a way for people who do not agree to just push their weight instead of discuss, notice Arthur did not attempt to discuss this with me on the talk page, just reverted constantly then ran here. --NuclearZer011:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the members arguement, let me explain. The 9/11 Truth Movement is a group of people. Much like the Civil Rights Movement was a group of people. For a person to say "Civil Rights Movement preached the complete destruction of anyone that cannot trace their heritage back to Africa in 2 generations" would be a lie, even if you could find 1 person that had some involvement that did say it. The problem is that the majority of people involved in this movement, I call them members, much like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. are members of the civil rights movement. No they are not members in the sense that they signed a piece of paper granting them super secret access and secret decoder rings. They are members because they are frequently mentioned in step with the movement. Some people want to argue that there are no prominent "members" since noone signed a charter, or keeps a list of who is "in" and who is "out". In seeing that arguement I changed membership to researchers, its a neutral terms and their appearance on the template basically showed their common thinking. So Arthur if you would ask me, instead of reverting, you could have had an answer. --NuclearZer014:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"This is why people use talk pages." Yes, why don't you do so before deleting information from templates, either by reversion, or by a direct edit. This is not a content dispute, although I disagree with Nuclear about the content. This is a dispute on his editing without using the talk page, or using the talk page to make a WP:POINT rather than to discuss the issues.
Also, I fail to see where your link indicates that I'm refusing to discuss the issues; a clear reading would indicate that I believe YOU are unwilling to discuss the issues. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)18:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this is how you know Arthur doesnt read the talk page nor do more then revert. The reason half the content is on the template is because I added it, more then 75% of the items I believe. What have you contributed? You say I am not willing to discuss but then we have this quote from you " I consider it effectively vandalism of the articles the template is included in, whether or not that was the intent. Perhaps the templates should be deleted if we can't reach agreement as to what should be the subject of the template."[38] And when told it would be better to work toward an agreement you responded by stating "It would be nice. So would peace in the Middle East. I'm not sure which is more probable"[39] So my apologies, you did use the talk page, to announce you would not work with your fellow editors that is. --NuclearZer020:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As should be obvious, my comment was intended to imply that your position was so set that it was unlikely you would agree to anything sensible. (This was before I found the information on your probation.) You seemed to be willing to change the templates to anything at all plausible which was not consistent with the original intent of the creator of the template, while I see nothing wrong with that intent, and was attempting to preserve it. As for consensus on Template:911ct, it's clear there was none. A pure count of editors with respect to their actions suggests a weak consensus for the original intent, but that's not very conclusive. I didn't agree with any of the arguments against keeping the Template:911ct as a full conspiracy theory template, and Template:911tm as fully encompassing the 9/11 Truth Movement, and commented to that effect the first time an argument was presented on the talk page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)23:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF - "my comment was intended to imply that your position was so set that it was unlikely you would agree to anything sensible."
A clear count of editors in line with the talk page, not your friends reverting, shows a concensus. I am sure the talk page has little discussion since they wouldn't have much more to say other then per Arthur. I hope you can review some of these Wiki pages and see that numerous items you said above are just incorrect and not how Wikipedia works. --NuclearZer014:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a generalization, but there are many places in the policies and guidelines which state that unless an concensus for change is obtained, the original status of the article is to be maintained. I see no reason why this shouldn't be followed. This is not a WP:OWN violation.
Until the non-straw-poll was added yesterday, the number of editors who expressed opposition to the "Conspiracy theory" version of the template was 3. And the editors reverting those changes (who are not my friends) number at least 4, not including me. There is clearly no concencus for "alternative".
It is good you admit you have never assumed good faith in any of this, unfortunatly I have and it is perhaps why I kept discussing while you kept reverting, very sad. Perhaps you should read up on Arbcom hearings, they arent meant to be used as weapons against people you do not agree with, seeing as you never assumed good faith, which is probably why you reverted without discussion says alot. --NuclearZer020:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NuclearZer0 has a history of tendentious editing on articles involving the War on Terrorism. A prior Arbcom case against him found that he has "engaged in editwarring and other disruptive editing" and has "failed to negotiate in good faith, engaging in repetitive assertions and circular logic". Since being placed on probation, he has notheless been blockedrepeatedly for violations of policy. Now NuclearZer0 has begun to disrupt the encyclopedia by tendentious edit-warring on Iraq War and related pages. [40][41][42][43][44][45]
Didn't Arbcom already tell you I wasnt involved in your dispute, get over it. You filed an RfC against Rangeley an Arbcom against me, do you plan to actually discuss with the people who do not agree with you? or do you plan to file other RfC's an Arbcoms against the other 12 left? Arbcom judgements are not weapons. I have discussed on the talk page of Rangeley's RfC, the Iraq War page, etc. So who do you plan to file on next that doesn't agree with you? --NuclearZer020:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that from my point of view as a previously uninvolved editor that NuclearZer0 has used a very belligerent and confrontational style of editing in respect to the article of question. He has repeatedly inserted the disputed content while all other editors have been discussing the mater under the talk page, justifying his unilateral insertion of the text by the same style of circular logic that saw him censured, he has also been uncivil to many editors and has taken actions that border on personal attacks.Freepsbane22:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So tell me if everyone is "talking" and I am the only one reverting ... who have I been reverting? Wouldnt the first time I put it back have caused it to be there till today? I mean if everyone is just talking and noone is reverting? Do yo uhave similar words for Timeshifter who has reverted 3x today alone? For some reason I doubt you do, perhaps cause he shares your view? --NuclearZer023:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have not noticed I have not edited or reverted the sentence in question, furthermore I have only edited its parent article twice within the past month.Freepsbane02:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about, noone said you did. I am asking if you want to see impartial why you are not citing everyone for reverting, acting as if I am the only one who did it, when someone who shares your view did it 3x that day and the other 2x? --NuclearZer018:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What negative information about Sathya Sai Baba was being added to the article? There is none that I can see. I think Andries is advancing a ludicrous interpretation here, and I'd like to demonstrate that with a hypothetical example. Suppose a British MP were, in the course of a speech in the House of Commons, to make some remark attacking Sathya Sai Baba. That would be transcribed and reported in Hansard and then appear on the Parliament website. According to Andries' interpretation, all links to the Parliament website would then have to be removed from all articles. Sam Blacketer22:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to the website of the Indian Skeptic www.indian-skeptic.org/html/index.htm Do not complain to me because I do not make the decisions here. But you are right abou the House of Commons that made critical comments about Sathya Sai Baba on their website which is archived. I will give make a warning there too, because it may be a violation of the arbcom decision. Same for the European Parliament. Andries22:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me exaggerated, but I will file a violation here to get more clarity from the people who make the rules and the decisions here. Andries22:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From 5Q514:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC): I included the link on the JREF article because of the prize money and I thought I was being helpful. This "Sathya Sai Baba" person is of no interest to me. I live in the U.S. Wiki user "Andries" left the following message in my Wiki account suggesting I might be banned for my edit. I took it as a threat that I should not be involved with anything negative about this "Sathya Sai Baba" person ever again directly or indirectly. This is a ridiculous complaint and a waste of Wikipedia's disk space. "Hi 5Q5, I filed a complaint about your editing behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#5Q5_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_on_James_Randi_Educational_Foundation_possible_violation_of_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FSathya_Sai_Baba.23Removal_of_poorly_sourced_information for your possible violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Removal_of_poorly_sourced_information Here is the possibly problematic edit that you made edit by 5Q5 made on 19:26, 26 January 2007 that links to the website of the Indian Skeptic containing possibly poorly sourced critical information about Sathya Sai Baba. I do not think that you will be banned for a long time, because you are new to Wikipedia, but I do not make a decision and cannot predict what others will decide. Andries 21:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)" (end of quoted material)[reply]
From 5Q519:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC). I did not submit an external link on the article of James Randi or Sathya Sai Baba. I submitted an external link, one of several, on the article for the James Randi Educational Foundation to various skeptics around the world who are offering prize money for proof of the paranormal. That's all I did. I did not see any mention on the article that it is subject to censorship and no external link even remotely associated with this Sathya Sai Baba person is not allowed. I could care less if you undid all my small amount of editing on the article. If Andries's goal is censorship of Wikipedia, then, you have won in my case, as I will never attempt an edit of the JREF article ever again! Filing this complaint againt me (if that's what this is) is an abuse of Wikipedia because it wastes the Administrators' valuable time. This is ridiculous![reply]
Xenophrenic (talk·contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction for Revert Parole. The final decision in their case is here: [46].
As per the Arbcom decision Xenophrenic may not perform more than one content revert in any 24 hour period, and must discuss any content revert. A Checkuser found it likely that Xenophrenic is also the anonymous IP mentioned in the ArbCom case [47]
I am sure that Xenophrenic will deny that he was correctly identified by the Checkuser, and if sanctioned will just create another account to evade, but a quick look at the editing style and focus of the articles involved most likely led to the “likely” finding. Why this user was not permanently banned for his continual and repeated Copyvio on this and related articles is beyond me [53].
I've banned the IP for 48 hours. However, he seems to be able to use a lot of IP addresses. In the future, try reporting him at WP:AIV for a faster response, although you will have to link to the arbitration case and the previous report here so that the blocking admin will know this is a violation rather than decline the report as a content dispute. If it becomes very persistent, it might be better to semi-protect the talk page. Thatcher13113:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is outrageous! In the first place, I'm being accused by a person that has clearly making this a personal issue against my person. Besides the fact that User:Descendall is a left-leaning Wikipedian that simply loves to insult anyone that doesn't support his political views [78][79], Descendall is ALWAYS behind every single edition that I do and ALWAYS ignoring the other persons in this disputes, selecting information that only suit his political point of views. Messhermit19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Bdean1963 has not made a single attempt to discuss the issue. On the other hand I have already exposed my arguments against his editions and I'm still waiting and answer that doesn't involve Bdean's "feelings" that it should be included [107]. As of today, two days after this dispute was solve with the protection of the articles, there is no response. What should I expect from someone that behaves in that way? But of course, User:Bdean1963 is innocent because User:Descendall didn't include him in this accusation. Messhermit19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing more than a political persecution against my person created by two left-leaning Anti-Fujimoristas and anti-democratic Wikipedians. Thus, I must define the present accusation against me as being only motivated by political hate that this two user have against me. This has reached a point where it seems that both Wikipedians are obsessed with the idea of forcing me to leave Wikipedia. Messhermit19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I wonder how an innactive Wikipedian is so concerned about my editions here in Wikipedia? Is it because of the nature of my editions or because he is always looking for an excuse to get me into troubles? Messhermit19:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get involved in these conspiracy theories. The only other run-in I've ever had with Messhermit is when he was violating the terms of his arbitration and was blocked for five days, but that was months and months ago. The bottom line is that 1) Messhermit has violated the terms of his arbitration multiple times 2) Messhermit is currently on probation 3) Messhermit is creating a problem on a bunch of articles that are similar to ones he is banned from editing. Again, I do not know if it would be appropriate to ban Messhermit from editing pages related to the war between Peru and Chile, but someone might want to look into it. --Descendall20:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conspiracy Theories? So now your editions are not credible? Do I have to remind you about the times that you decided what should go in the articles of Sendero Luminoso (not even in Wikipedia Spanish hear your claim), Alberto Fujimori, Martha Chavez, People's War and many others? If you are going to be neutral then STOP selecting information and day things the way they are: Bdean1963 refused to compromise, he does not want to discuss and that you are stalking me. Messhermit20:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I literally have no idea what you're even talking about. People's War? I don't think I've even edited that. Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else? Anyway, I'm not even involved in the dispute that I've listed. I'm also not on probation, nor the subject of arbitration. Nor am I violating 3RR. Nor am I making wholly illogical edits, such as refusing to allow a link to the text of a treaty in an article. You are. That's why I brought this up here. --Descendall20:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not confusing you. If you claim that you are not involved, then why did you listed me and not him? Because you are both comrades? Because you both believe that I'm a agent of the bourgeois and imperialist Peruvian right? Messhermit20:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I just don't know what to say. I've read conspiracy thorists on wikipedia before, but this one takes the cake. Sorry for dumping this problem on you, admins. --Descendall20:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if your nearly illogical defense to naming Sendero Luminoso as the "Communist Party of Peru" (even thouh nobody in Wikipedia ES heared your arguments as an IP user and inmediately removed that) is also a "Conspiracy theory". Messhermit20:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And about the illogical editions, I'm not the one insulting people just because I don't like their POV. And its not about a "link to a text of a treaty" but rather to a whole section (READ BEFORE LAUNCHING SUCH A SERIOUS CLAIM) that has nothing to do with the War of the Pacific. Messhermit20:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, once again: you are retired. What a coincidence that your editions are against my person. Your only motive is that I don't agree with your political views. Messhermit20:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bdean1963 has refused to answer any call to discuss the dispute in the "Talk Page" in both articles. I believe that after exposing my case in BOTH "Talk Pages" and not hearing anything from the other party involved, I have already done more than enough to solve this dispute. Once the protection is lifted, I believe I have the right to revert it to its original estate based on the FACTS that:
The other Wikipedia doesn't have the will to discuss.
The Maritime dispute between Peru and Chile can only be traced back to the early 1950's and NOT to the War of the Pacific
I would appreciate any sort of advice that this committee might have, and to certify that my editions are based on logical and plausible conclusions, not based in neither emotional nor ideological differences. Messhermit14:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can not involve myself in this case as an administrator because I know both of these editors. However, as an editor and member of the Peru Wikiproject I will say that I am disappointed by the amount of edit warring that has gone on in articles related to the War of the Pacific. With regards to the actual content, I actually agree somewhat with Messhermit in that the recent events should not be as highlighted as they are in these articles but his edit warring is causing more harm then good and it has caused that page and the Tacana page to be protected. And both of those page's talk pages have long drawn out disputes between this user and User:Bdean1963 which contain vast amounts of personal attacks from both sides.--Jersey Devil04:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have already been blocked by an Administrator for a certain period of time, and I'm willing to avoid getting into this kind of situations as long as its necessary. In this case, I have already exposed the necessary documentation in both articles that demonstrate that I was acting in good faith and with reasonable arguments the exclusion of certain paragraphs. I will revert no more, and I'm fact I'm still waiting for the other party involved in the dispute to respond in a civilized way and settle this problem once and for all.
Thus, I'm asking to any Administrator to mediate for us in this dispute and help us to solve this problem. I have already requested a RFC in the "History & Geography" section, with little result. Messhermit16:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bksimonb (talk·contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: [108].
User Bksimonb is now removing comments from the BKWSU discussion page, a topic under probation, by way of attempting to control not just the article but even discussion of it where there has been a history of edit warring and ownership.
Conflict of interest. Individual is member of the BKWSU IT Team. [111]
"17:19, 9 February 2007 Bksimonb (Talk | contribs) (Rv Banned user. Thanks for the "mediums" reference. However you are banned. If you have any more tips email me instead since you are not entitled to either edit or discucss on Wikipedia now.)"
Reported by: 218.138.12.800:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i believe, based on your tone, content, and certain common phrases, that there is a strong likelihood that you are the user who formerly posted from 195.82.106.244, or that you know that user and are posting on his or her behalf. That user is banned for one year, and under the banning policy, banned users are not allowed to make any edits. Their talk page comments as well as article edits may be reverted or removed. It would probably be better, for the sake of appearances, if someone not involved in the situation made that decision; and it would probably cause less dissention to simply ignore your remarks than to remove them. But Bksimonb is acting within the rules to remove your comments. Thatcher13104:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May be "banned from articles he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring." Is now going through my contribution hisory in an attempt to edit war back in an unreliable source. When will something be done to get rid of this problem editor? Hipocrite - «Talk»17:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O grow up. You decided because you and one other person do not like David Horowitz, that its enough to remove ever External link pointing to Discover The Network, which is a very popular, sourced website, from Wikipedia. I am preparing a complaint against you now. Further, after I asked you to seek a larger concensus you attack me with a WP:STALK claim? You have already been cited for 3RR today for this action. Please stop it and seek a larger concensus then you and someone that is on the other end of the political spectrum, its not enough to edit 20+ articles. --NuclearZer017:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that most of the comments sources to DTN can be tracked back to their original sources; they look like a news and comment aggregator. No matter what the politics of an aggregator or blog like this is, it is always best practice to find the original source of the comment, rather than rely on an intermediary. Unfortunately, they do not provide these bibliographic details themselves, and for some comments it may take a college student/teacher with access to Lexis/Nexis where a basic google search fails. In the meantime, whether to remove the cited material entirely, or leave the comments and replace the citation with {{fact}}, is a matter of editorial judgement. Insisting on either extreme (remove all now or leave all for now) is likely to be unwise. Thatcher13118:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many have suspected this, though today it was found Rumplestiltskin was using an anonymous IP to provide citations to content Hkelkar added some time ago. Understand that many users have been alleging the two were the same person before this. Because the sources were books published in the 50s and 60s, no longer in print, and Rumplestiltskin knew the exact locations of the related content, I argue it's impossible that Rumplestiltskin ,now given other mentioned similarities that,is anyone other than Hkelkar.
Richardmalter (talk·contribs) - Background. BDORT is an invention by living person Yoshiaki Omura. Richardmalter holds himself out as an authorized representative of Mr. Omura on Wikipedia. ArbCom. Per ArbCom ban for disruption, Richardmalter and all other accounts and anonymous IPs with the same disruptive editing pattern are indefinitely banned from editing Yoshiaki Omura or its talk page. While the ArbCom process was going forward, Yoshiaki Omura and the BDORT technique was consolidated in the Yoshiaki Omura article. See this link.BDORT has since been moved to an article separate from Yoshiaki Omura. ArbCom provided an enforcement by block: "Richardmalter and the other accounts and anonymous IPs with the same disruptive editing pattern may be blocked for up to a year if they edit Yoshiaki Omura or its talk page." Violations. - (i) Six days after the ArbCom ruling, Richardmalter made a first post about BDORT on the BLPN page as well as made a second post about BDORT on the BLPN page. (ii) The second post resulted in the same kind of talk banter by Richardmalter that could have appeared on the Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT talk page but for Richardmalter's ban from those pages. Both BLPN posts potentially were disruptive and the second BLPN post by Richardmalter appeared to in fact be disruptive, particularly to User:Crum375 - an editor taking on the task of fixing the Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT articles per the ArbCom decision. Crum375 was involved in the ArbCom dispute, but no action was taken against Crum375 by ArbCom. (My involvement is through my work on the BLPN page and I have no participation in the matter other than this report.) Analysis and request. By posting about Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT on a talk page, by engaging in talk banter that would appear on the Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT talk page but for Richardmalter being banned from that page, and/or by continued apparent disruptive behavior regarding articles and topics specifically addressed in the ArbCom decision, I ask you to consider that Richardmalter has directly and/or indirectly violated the ArbCom ban for disruption and take the appropriate action. -- reported by Jreferee 19:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC) (Richardmalter has received notice of this request on his talk page. -- Jreferee19:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Further violation evidence. I reviewed SlimVirgin's note, followed it to SlimVirgin's talk page, and discovered more evidence to support my request. (iii) In addition to turning the BLP talk page essentially into a talk page for Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT, Richardmalter turned SlimVirgin's user talk page into a talk page for Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT four days after the ArbCom ruling.[113]Analysis and request. In addition to his aggressive use of Wikipedia forums to mobilize support for Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT point of view editing, it is Richardmalter replying to posts by others about Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT - exchange his thoughts on the topic with others on Wikipedia - that particularly violates the ArbCom decision. What further compounds the ArbCom decision violations is that his Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT post continue to be disruptive and made with little regard for what ArbCom sought to accomplish. Despite the February 2 ArbCom decision, my February 9th post here, and SlimVirgin's February 9th note on Richardmalter's talk page, Richardmalter continues to use his Wikipedia account as a single purpose account to influence both the content in and the user contributors to the Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT articles, from which Richardmalter has been banned indefinitely by ArbCom. Please review my request above along with this new evidence and take the appropriate action. -- by original requestor. Jreferee16:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please accept the possibility that there is another interpretation possible. As SlimVirgin informed me, the ArbCom ruled/s on 'behaviour' not content. The version that was edit warred pro for by user Crum375 et al did in established fact contain clear blatant violations of WP:BLP that I argued against and subsequently were deleted as such BLP violations by SlimVirgin at my insistance. This is all verifiable (by looking at the record and SlimVirgin's Admin intervention and comments). There are still serious WP:BLP issues with the current entry. I wont take up space here repeating what I have detailed on other BLP pages. I am requesting other editors/Admin deal with this BLP issue. Crum375 follows me around and creates a discussion wherever I post a request for help/intervention - this is not my doing. It's as simple as that. I have not attempted to edit the page - I am keeping to the ArbCom decision; even though I strongly disagree with it. Thanks.Richardmalter 04:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Jreferee, also, how you describe my calm requesting of help and setting out of details - process and content, to support the need for it, according to WP:BLP, as 'aggressive' and 'disruptive' I do not know! Richardmalter11:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Richard may not edit the article Yoshiaki Omura, or articles about or related to him or his procedure. He is not prevented from raising concerns about the article on other fora, such as the BLP noticeboard or an admin's talk page. Whether or not other editors respond to his concerns is a matter for their own discretion and judgement. Thatcher13114:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing most of my concerns. However, Richard not only was banned from editing the article, he was banned from the article talk page. Yes, he may raise concerns about the article on other fora and others in good standing with the article/topic may reply to those concerns. However, can Richard, who is not in good standing with the article/topic, then respond in kind? In other words, although Richard was banned from the article talk page, can Richard engage in the same kind of response talk banter that could have appeared on the Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT talk page but for Richardmalter's ban from those pages? For example, post ArbCom, Richard responds a first time to Crum375 (who is editing the BDORT article) on SlimVirgin's talk page about Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT [114], Richard continues the talk and responds a second time to Crum375 on SlimVirgin's talk page about Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT [115]. Richard then incorporates Talk:Yoshiaki_Omura talk page information into the SlimVirgin's talk page discussion by providing Diffs 6 and 7. [116]. Also post ArbCom, on the BLPN page, Richard responds to Crum375 about Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT [117] and responds to GenghizRat's post [118] with statements about Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT content here [119]. I think it's important to note that Crum375, GenghizRat, and Philosophus were Involved parties in the ArbCom case with Richardmalter and a request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. -- by original requestor Jreferee18:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a complicated issue. First, regarding SlimVirgin's talk page, it's her page and she is quite capable of deciding if Richard is abusing it. If she is interested in discussing the article with him, that is her choice, and Crum and the other's don't even have to involve themselves if they would rather not. Regarding the BLP noticeboard or other areas where Richard might raise concerns, I would think a case by case evaluation would be needed. Arbcom did not ban him from ever mentioning Dr. Omura or BDORT, so some level of engagement is potentially tolerable. Suppose Richard raises an issue at the BLP noticeboard and it is discussed and either acted on or not, and Richard drops it. No problem. Suppose on the other hand he becomes disruptive over it, or posts the same complaint over and over again no matter how many times it has been considered and dismissed. That certainly would be grounds to extend his topical ban to cover other areas of wikipedia. Admin judgement and discretion is usually required when enforcing arbitration rulings. Thatcher13105:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can put a name to him I can file a checkuser request, but just saying "it's someone from the Hkelkar case" is too much of a fishing trip. Thatcher13112:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taken with his recent disruption of intelligent design-related articles, his return to disrupting the topic that prompted his probation, and unwillingness to move on and edit another less controversial areas of Wikipedia, I doubt anything short of a block will get his attention.
There certainly does seem to be an attention deficit regarding the outcome and related admonishments of his RFA; I'm not sure that a simple block will be effective in correcting the disorder. •Jim62sch•00:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user's response at User talk:Ed Poor#Move of List of scientists opposing global warming consensus states a willingness to respect consensus. Hopefully this is a sincere statement of his intentions and the incidents discussed above do not presage a return to the behavior that resulted in sanctions in the past, as a pattern of such behavior could lead to severe enforcement action in light of the user's overall record. No action taken for now, but I will draw the user's attention to this complaint. In the event of further problems, return to this noticeboard and mention this complaint and the warning. Newyorkbrad00:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure that his outward appearance of reasonableness isn't carefully calculated, particularly given his history. He's continuing to make some dubious contributions: [128]FeloniousMonk01:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already deleted that,[129] the moment someone pointed out to me that it wasn't regarded as helpful. You know, it would be nicer if you'd simply tell me what's wrong with an edit, instead of immediately pushing for "enforcement". If you want a certain type of thing discussed first, you need only tell me. --Uncle Ed01:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, you and I both know that once you're on probation it's the case that you've already had plenty of warnings leading up that and that no further warnings are necessary. The fact that you are continuing to disrupt Global_warming_controversy and Talk:Global_warming_controversy#Temperature in the intro after yesterday's warning is sufficient grounds for immediate blocking. I do wish you'd move along and leave alone the articles where you earned your probation and find a quiet little uncontroversial corner of Wikipedia to contribute to quietly. Doing so would be a fine demonstration of your good faith and go a long way to reestablishing the community's trust. FeloniousMonk23:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the page move, in my opinion Ed's apologies are rather meaningless since he knew full well there were significant objections to moving the page. He participated in a discussion about such a move which began 30 July 2006 (see discussion) as well as another discussion on whether there exists a consensus, in response to Ed's POV edits, on 3 August 2006 (see discussion). In addition to the page move, he has also continued to put his POV in the article itself (diff).
That said, I'm not really offended by the "Temperature in the intro" discussion referenced above. Adding redlinks is a bit annoying but I wouldn't call it disruptive (unless this was a big issue in the past?).
I want to make my apology more meaningful: If FeloniousMonk, Raymond Arritt or Nethgirb wishes, I will refrain from editing any article they name for any period they choose (up to six weeks). Fair enough? --Uncle Ed11:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your offer. I do not really want to have that power, and would prefer to leave it up to the ArbCom or administrators. As a personal suggestion I think you would do fine if you just discuss changes on the talk page first, and think critically about your edits and make sure that statements (or implications) that you add are backed up by reliable sources which you cite. --Nethgirb12:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree mostly with Nethgirb. Ed, I think you're sincere about wanting to do better. But your repeat offenses across a long period of time and a broad range of article space -- global warming, intelligent design, etc. -- suggest that you just can't help yourself. A very wise man once said "Lead us not into temptation." Maybe you could find some uncontroversial topics related to, say, music, hobbies, and so on where you could contribute without being tempted to go overboard. You're obviously a smart guy and can make useful contributions to Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt03:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, this isn't let's make a deal; you're on arbcom probation. Either abide by it or not, the choice rests with you, as does the responsibility for failing to comply. FeloniousMonk05:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Between apologies Ed has been busy translating Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) into Weaselish. "Wells rejects evolution" suddenly became "Wells questions the teaching of evolution in a way that implies outright rejection" in Ed's idea of neutral editing for example, among other interesting ditties: [130] Is this Ed's idea of a 'meaningful apology'? 151.151.73.17122:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can deleted my latest series of changes, and no one objects on the talk page, that tells me something. I'm going to avoid touching that article for the rest of the month. --Uncle Ed02:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest you avoid it altogether moving forward considering you were falling over yourself apologizing here with one hand while making the clearly biased edits at the Wells article with the other. Again, arbcom probation is not let's make a deal. And your faux naif questions while arguing for elevating the views ID proponents to being on par with that of the scientific community which outright rejects ID at Wells article over the last few days is precisely one of the activities named as evidence of tendentious editing in your RFAR that eventually landed you here. Now if you think you can with a few strategically-placed apologies (while still making blatantly biased edits) game the system to side-step your probation, I don't think you'll get too far with that. FeloniousMonk05:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an outside observer, this request to me seems extremely vexatious. I see no prior talk discussion, no mention on his page, just an ArbCom enforcement request. ArbCom rulings are NOT there to strongarm people or bypass proper dispute resolution methods. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me)18:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement is long on emotional language but short on substance, I think. The Arbcom ruling is in place because this has been an ongoing problem, and previous efforts to resolve it have failed. Are you really suggesting we start over from scratch and treat it like a fresh problem each time? To do that would be to say that Arbcom sanctions are meaningless. Friday(talk)19:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever's interesting in talking this over is free to do so, of course - please, go ahead. And those who are interested in seeking enforcement of existing remedies are free to do that, of course. If the talkers are very successful, the enforcers won't be needed. But it's silly IMO to suggest that talking is the only appropriate way to deal with this- the sanctions exist for a reason. Friday(talk)19:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, this was the cluebat. The instructions 'Arbitration Committee decisions are the last stop of dispute resolution. ArbCom has already decided that certain types of behavior by these users is not constructive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia. If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned.' make that clear. 151.151.73.16422:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the talking doesn't seem to be successful. Despite his previous pledge to not disrupt a certain set of articles, [131] Ed Poor is back a week later violating WP:POINT at the same articles:
Adding a biased intro to Intelligent design: [132]
Reverting self: [133]
4 edits that ignore and misrepresent sources to an article that was just made a Featured Article!: [134]
I'm interested in reading Ed's explanation for how these do not violate WP:POINT. 151.151.21.10218:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I wrote On 2nd thought, maybe the burden of proof is on me. Hmm.. in my Edit summary.
If anyone, even an anon who won't sign in, feels I've made a disruptive edit, I am willing to self-revert. Come on, guys, work with me here. You don't have to paint me as the bad guy. Just tell me what you want me to do. You want me to propose all me edits to ID before making them? If so, say so. --Uncle Ed21:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best advice given so far is that you stay away from controversial topics altogether, since you are continually doing things that you later regret. Raymond Arritt22:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After his being sanctioned, the user continued aggressive edit warring at the Srebrenica Massacre article under the sockpuppet KarlXII. After being exposed for using a sockpuppet, the user as Osli73 has continued to violate the terms of his parole which states that the user is "limited to one revert per article per week". All violations reported here are at the Srebrenica Massacre article.
The following diffs show examples of the offending behavior
Osli73 made the same revert 6 times in an 8 day period: Feb. 19, Feb. 18, Feb. 12, Feb. 12, Feb.11, Feb. 11
Here is one of many examples of the user edit warring with the sockpuppet KarlXII. KarlXII made the same reverts to the Srebrenica Massacre intro 5 times in 3 days: Dec. 16, Dec. 18, Dec. 15, Dec. 15, and Dec. 15.
From his statements, Osli73 has shown that he fully understands the restrictions placed upon him. From his actions, he has shown that he is not willing to abide by those restrictions.
Initial detailed complaint and counter-complaint at AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive203#Blocking revert of move. In brief, Instantnood claims large numbers of edits by Huaiwei to articles "standardising" the spelling "Macao" to "Macau" without consensus; Huaiwei alleges large numbers of reverts by IN on the same articles.
Discussion ceased (though disputed behaviour did not) during: Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 4, which was in due course declined on grounds of alleged sufficiency of existing remedies (provision for page bans and site bans (see below)).
Instantnood reverts this three times in total, including twice in two hours (on these occasions with another editor not under such probation) [138], [139], despite an AC enforcement item by an admin claiming to limit him to 1RR. Given that each of these edits recategorises and rescopes about 900 different articles, I'd say all of this constitutes "disruption".
Instantnood rescopes {{China-road-stub}} from "People's Republic of China" to "Mainland China", without any prior participation in the discussion of this at WP:WSS/P.
(The potential for significant disruption, and not to say pointless server load, by editing stub templates is precisely why we have WP:WSS/P and WP:SFD for discussing these naming and scoping issues, and while they're not technically obligatory, editors under probation would be well-advised to pay them some heed.)
Summation
I propose to institute page-bans on both at {{China-geo-stub}}, and at Instantnood {{China-road-stub}}, with a view to extending this to any other stub templates and stub categories similar disruption occurs on. (I mention this in advance here only in the interests of full disclosure.) I invite discussion of whether either (or both) should be site-banned for a period for edit-warring over the totality of their behaviour as manifest over this series of articles, templates and categories.
Thanks for the reminder. Yes, on both, per -geo-. (H. first, and IN sustainedly.) Other editors weighing in too. I'd protect that as an "HRT", but I'd rather not be accused (again) of improperly favouring a particular version. I suggest we take the scoping issue back to WP:SFD, and if that doesn't produce a clear consensus, to WP:DRV. Alai05:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of {{China-geo-stub}} as decided by consensus was mainland China. The same is the case for {{China-struct-stub}}. It would have been fine if user:Huaiwei were willing to propose and seek consensus from the community first, before going straight to edit according to his preference. User:SchmuckyTheCat, although no longer under probation (as he tactically stayed himself away from problematic edits during the course of the third case), knows very well too about what has been going on. Since I was not the person creating trouble to {{China-geo-stub}} and {{China-struct-stub}}, and I was merely trying to halt attempts to avoid discussion and consensus building, I don't think it is necessary to ban me from editing the templates. I don't even edit the templates (cf. edit history records of the two templates) unless there is attempt to not following consensus established. — Instantnood07:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for {{China-road-stub}}, I've explained in details to user:Alai on why I have rescoped it. To repeat briefly, i) user:Alai said " upmerged " in the edit summary when he recreated the template, and I supposed it was recreation of the previously deleted template bearing the same title, therefore following the original scope of the old template, ii) the template applied (and applies, and will apply) only to roads in mainland China, and iii) the scope user:Alai had chosen did not go in line with what was decided for similar stub types, namely {{China-geo-stub}} and {{China-struct-stub}}, by consensus.
Since user:Alai has insisted to have his preference prevails, and since the template is still at proposal stage at WP:WSS/P, I'll leave it as it is until a clear decision is made through consensus at WP:WSS/P. Meanwhile I'd also like to take this opportunity to urge wikipedians to decide scopes of stub types according to structures of comparable existing stub types.
It's not about content, it's about behavior. You will not stop reverting and you do not discuss and that pattern has continued for 2½ years now. You also say "I'll leave it as it is until a clear decision is made" and your very next edit is to change the scope of one of the mentioned stubs AGAIN. SchmuckyTheCat15:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whose responsibility is it to start a discussion at the talk page? The one who modifies an entry while knowing such modifications are controversial at the time of the edit, or the users who revert such edits with reference to an official guideline? Well yes those who revert do have the responsibility to tell what's wrong, yet would that be neccessary to tell such users who have persistently making controversial edits, and and who have been spreading their drive to more and more entries? — Instantnood11:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom has placed you under probation for making disruptive edits, POV re-orgs, etc. As the one who shouldn't be making such edits, I'd say the onus is on you. As you make the same edit hundreds of times it is unreasonable to hold hundreds of simultaneous discussions. If there is a problem that affects hundreds of articles bring the issue up in a centralized place. SchmuckyTheCat16:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed behaviour did not cease when asked to stop without using dispute resolution User_talk:Instantnood#Revert.2C_hello.3F, and other messages left by other users. An extension to his ArbCom penalties was requested. The reverts did not stop during, or now immediately after: Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 4. ArbCom declined to create a new sanction and prefers the remedies of article bans and site bans, potentially including an indefinite site ban with the support of any three administrators.
In order to understand the seriousness and ArbCom sanctions him you have to understand Instantnood. He games the system to stay under any revert limit but he carries on the same revert war for years which is what makes ignoring him disruptive to those trying to maintain consistency. He makes a few reverts to an article once a week or once a month to what he prefers then leaves it for a bit and returns after the disruption has died down to do it again. His edits singularly enforce his POV and his edits are usually minor changes to categories, templates, intro, etc that change the presentation of articles. Changes to templates and categories can affect hundreds of articles at a time. He often makes changes to two templates/categories, each individually looks like a minor content change but together he has re-classified something entirely the opposite of what it was.
In every ArbCom case, and every excuse for enforcement, he always argues about why his content is right, and he seemingly ignores or is entirely oblivious to his behavior. It is his behavior that is sanctioned. Time base blocks on Instantnood do not work, as soon as the block is over he will return to reverting. Given his method of making disruptive reverts, then leaving the article alone, the time based block is ineffective - he would have left it alone anyways. He needs to be blocked from editing these articles using the {{userarticleban}}.
the majority of his edits over the last week are content reverts based on his solo crusades. For offending behavior, I offer his entire contrib history for the last week, since Lunar New Year (Displays as Feb 18 or 19 in his contrib list depending on your time zone).
Revert warring on policy/guideline pages is particularly disruptive. This revert now goes on for years. In this case he was making this revert in 2005, [144] after long heated discussions with many participants this sentence/phrase was removed. Nood restored it repeatedly and was banned from editing this page for a year, and on expiration of the page ban, he made the exact same revert.
The following list of articles contain general revert warring, generally without discussion, anywhere from 2 to 10 reverts in a few days. Alternatively, they contain particularly egregious examples of POV re-organization which his ArbCom sanction also prohibits. This is only a list from the last week and is incomplete. The worse examples are bolded. He should be page banned from each.
Demographics of China restoring text from 2005 [149] after this content was moved to the next article, so he could point to this article on a talk page and state the next article was superfluous. Not checked
Demographics of mainland China continuation of above revert war, here he objects to changing the article title, so he is reverting both articles to remove what he doesn't like and make it appear consistent, though lots of discussion in 2005 resulted in the community changing these way back then. Not checked
Instantnood has edit warred at all the articles and categories listed above, including many violations of his 1 revert per day parole imposed by admin Eagle 101 (talk) on 8 December 2006, see here. Many of these edit wars involve categorization of articles and categories. Instantnood specifically targets category changes made by Huaiwei, even if they were days or weeks earlier, showing that Instantnood is specifically tracking and reverting Huaiwei.
Huaiwei has edit warred. The changes he makes may or may not be in good faith. However, when Instantnood reverts, Huaiwei edit wars rather than seeking other forms of assistance.
Instantnood is banned from editing any category page related to China, including but not limited to its history, culture, territories and disputed territories.
Instantnood is banned from adding or removing any category related to China from any article related to China. He may be blocked without further warning for up to a week for each violation.
Huaiwei is also banned from editing any category page related to China, and from adding or removing any category related to China from any article related to China. Huaiwei may be blocked for up to one week per violation without further warning.
After being banned for a month, and appealing same. Instantnood returned as an IP to perform the same reverts reported before. Please {{userarticleban}} him from Demographics of the People's Republic of China.
I blocked the IP, but it's probably dynamic. As long as he is blocked for the month, any edits he actually signs can be reported to AIV or AN/I for a faster response, as well as reverted wthout limit. I'll get around to some article bans tomorrow. There's no rush at this point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatcher131 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The problem was that you were taking the advantage of my absense and have tried to speedy two stub categories which you wanted them disappeared. Both of them would have disappeared if I did not put on the {{hangon}} tag. — Instantnood11:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Classic case of 'two wrongs make... two wrongs'. Schmucky's depopulations and speedy-taggings were quite inappropriate, given this was known by him to be a disputed matter. There's a venue (or several) for discussing these matters. Amd IN's hangons were besides the point: one of them was deleted anyway; the other I removed becaused I was going to that page anyway to take the matter to WP:SFD. (The other I didn't notice it unless after it'd been speedied.) Accordingly, I'd caution IN to respect his ban, and StC to desist from behaviour essentially similar to what got IN and H. sanctioned in the first place. Alai18:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Warned It is clear that he is cooperating with Adil in edit warring against others, although just past 24 hours. Gaming the system is not to be tolerated, and 1 Revert parole is not a license to continue the same edit war but in slow motion. Thatcher13106:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Its a one revert restriction per 24 hours, not an edit restriction. I have not broken 1rr at all on any article I am involved in, infact, I have put it upon myself to wait 48 hours between reverts to prove that I have no intention of edit warring anywhere. Its funny that you should report me, because you are the one that broke 1rr: [159][160] (thats two reverts just under 24 hours)Azerbaijani21:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admin response There is a technical violation by Elsanaturk and no violation that I can see by Azerbijani. However there is a lack of productive discussion, so whether you revert once a day or once a week you're still not making progress. I tend to think that if someone made a dramatic speech on VoA you could find a newspaper or something that talked about it, or a book or other source on the history of the region. If there is no real dispute about authenticity the speeech might go in the external link section and some reference found to describe the speech's content in the article body. Thatcher13102:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
user:Eupator automatically reverting, edit varring, acting in bad faith
user:Eupator has been edit warring, incessantly reverting, using disruptive editing and removing fully sourced, authoritative, academic, verifiable evidence (such as from Encyclopedia Iranica, etc.), from the articles on Tigranes the Great, Orontid Dynasty, Artaxiad Dynasty, and Koryun. Despite this going on for months, nothing was done to user Eupator for reverting pages, often with no or little explanation, for DOZENS of times. At times, he would also meatpuppet, by gaming the system, and asking a large possy of his followers to do the reverting for him. --adil18:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One can easily look at the talk pages for all the articles and clearly see that I showed plenty of good faith initially even though it was obvious that user AdilBaguirov was merely disrupting the articles with pov intepretations of various literature. All of his pov pushing has been rebuffed on each of the talk pages of the articles not only by myself and user TigrantheGreat but also by third party editors such as user Aldux and Ali among others. Read the talk pages and make your own judgement. Good faith was thrown out of the window after a month or two of discussions. Notice that not even Adil's allies have supported him in these attempts of disruption. Since registration this user has made no positive contibutions to wikipedia. None whatsoever. Created no articles. Reverted no vandalism. Helped no users. He has concentrated all his efforts to one goal, that is the disruption of various unrelated Armenian historical articles. After almost a year, nothing has changed. I could have easily turned each of those articles into an FA article like I did with Tiridates I of Armenia from scratch had Adil ceased his disruption. --ΕυπάτωρTalk!!19:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Unless there has been a violation of the revert parole imposed in the arbitration case to which Eupator is a party, there is no action that can be taken here. Admins are not judges or approvers of content. You may wish to add this as evidence in the arbitration case. If Eupator has violated the 1RR parole recently, please post diffs. Thatcher13119:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previously, Eupator did violate the 1RR injunction, but no action was taken: [196] Meanwhile, the above shows consistent and gross violation of Wikipedia's policies -- never mind bad faith, revert warring and disruptions -- but repeated removal of sourced, verifiable information. --adil21:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response fundamentally this is a content dispute. Normally your first step would be RFC, then mediation, and finally arbitration. Since you are both already parties to the ongoing arbitration, deal with this there. This page is for enforcing the decisions of the ArbCom. Thatcher13100:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After his being sanctioned, the user continued aggressive edit warring at the Srebrenica Massacre article under the sockpuppet KarlXII. After checkuser exposed KarlXII as a sockpuppet, the account was blocked indefinitely and Osli73 was blocked for one week. Once re-instated, Osli73 continued to violate the terms of his parole which states that the user is "limited to one revert per article per week". His violations were reported here and he was again blocked for 2 weeks ending March 14. Upon re-instatement, he has again continued to violate his parole making the exact same multiple reverts as before.
The following diffs show recent examples of the offending behavior (multiple reverts) concerning one sentence in the Srebrenica Massacre introduction. These reverts occurred between March 19 and March 22:
Here are examples of the user edit warring with the sockpuppet KarlXII again over the same sentence in the intro: Dec. 16, Dec. 18, Dec. 15, Dec. 15, and Dec. 15.
Summation:
From his statements, Osli73 has shown that he fully understands the restrictions placed upon him. From his actions, he has shown that he is not willing to abide by those restrictions.
I am reasonably certain that this editor is a major contributer to the http://www.brahmakumaris.info website forums that are mentioned in the arbitration case and posts under a similar alias there [201].
The following diffs show the offending behavior
Starting with a crap-flood of the talk page including statements made in bad faith [202] he is forcing his edits onto the page in a manner that suggests contempt for the views of other editors [203].
He has also taunted and made personal attacks & accusations against other editors [204].
I have tried to reason with him on his talk page [205] but received the response, "...i am not interested in speaking with you" [206].
Summation
It is clear to me that this editor has no intention of cooperating. I would appreciate some action is taken to restore order to the article. We just don't need this kind of rubbish.
Unfortunately the form of article probation put in place by the Arbitration Committee does not allow direct action against disruptive editors (other than the banned 195 editor). I have asked the Committee to review the situation; you may wish to make a comment here as well. Thatcher13115:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request review of Ombudsman's edits at said AfD as I believe they are tendentious and violate terms of his probation. I am a participant in the AfD, but have not participated in any of the autism-related articles. Ombudsman has been notified of this report here.
Admin note Just to clarify, Ombudsman may be banned from any medically-related article he disrupts. Violations of the article ban may be enforced by blocking. Since the AfD is closed, there doesn't seem to be any response needed here at this time. Thatcher13100:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The edits were in the manner of advocacy, which is consistent with the purpose of Articles for deletion. He is entitled to express an opinion differing from community consensus in contexts where it cannot be mistaken for encyclopedic content written from the neutral point of view.
Ombudsman has also edit warred over a redirect at Autism epidemic, and I think this comes close to going against the sense of his probation. At times he has simply removed the redirect, leaving a blank article [207][208]. He then edit warred over whether to place a rfd or afd tag to discuss deletion of that redirect [209][210]. His justification for this edit warring is "misleading link", which given that the redirect target is Autism (incidence), could justifiably be described as tendentious. A ban from that redirect/article, which he is certainly disrupting, might be in order. --Tony Sidaway18:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tony. I agree with your comments. At this time, however, the dispute over the redirect seems to have settled down. If it flares up again this can be reconsidered. It's not necessary to wait for a full blown edit war before applying an article ban to a user on probation. Thatcher13101:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user is believed to be continuing to edit the BKWSU article in an provocative and biased manner using various sock puppets. The article was semi-protected for a while due to the use of what appear to be random IP proxies [212] but the protection has now lapsed however even semi-protection would be insufficient since this user seems to be using various named accounts also.
Now the user is believed to be using the handles Quickerection (talk·contribs), Jankijunky (talk·contribs) and Fineupstandingmember (talk·contribs). The first of these three is already blocked for being an obscene name. In the latest bout I have not yet seen the usual pattern of taunting other editors but the type and style of edits is very familiar.
Removal of NPOV tag [213]. The 244 editor has always strongly contested any NPOV warning tag [214]. This view is unique and quite unusual since an NPOV tag is usually applied for much less reason to many other articles.
Biased opinions being referenced as a source for flatly stated facts [216]
Misuse of references. The Wikipedia:OR tag is removed, reference inserted, but the reference does not address the fact being queried [217] (that murlis were ever on sale to the general public).
Summation
Often the edits deliberately undo changes made by pro-subject editors which were made with consensus on the discussion page. We are currently building consensus on the talk page between editors with differing views. It is a shame that this disruptive editor seems to be able jump in at any time and make a mockery of our otherwise promising efforts to form a balanced team of editors. I was a participant to the arbitration case. Two other participants are currently active on the article, TalkAbout (talk·contribs) and Appledell (talk·contribs). It has never been possible to reach any consensus with 244 due to his/her agressive stance towards other editors, even editors with similar views [218]. I've noticed that 244 just seems to edit as he/she sees fit.
Thanks Thatcher131. FYI the username Jankijunky is a reference to one of the administrative heads of the organisation, Dadi Janki. Obviously adding the word "junki" after it indicates that a point is being made. Regards Bksimonb09:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What appears to be the same user is now continuing the reverts as 86.152.174.239 (talk·contribs). They follow exactly the same pattern and preferred version as the sockpuppets listed above. This is a static IP address based in London using British Telecom. Thanks & regards Bksimonb18:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't prove/nor will I assert that the vandalism is .244 (I don't trace IPs nor seek to find out identities), I will ask here as I did on the bot (it removed the protection on some automated basis) page, to please put the protection back on the article as it is only creating havoc. We are just now beginning to get some level of decorum and peaceful working agreements in working with the resources available. Thank you for your time and consideration with regards to this matter. PEACETalkAbout19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user isn't going to give up in a hurry. This is getting to be hard work. Right now I am the only user around to revert the disruption and because of an obvious perceived COI with the article subject on my part I am probably not the best person to be doing it. Plus, since I am not an admin, I have to post here and other places to report the disruption and this creates a lot of noise (read attention for the banned user). I would really like to discuss what we can do as a long term solution. Ideally, I guess I, would like an admin to monitor the article and article talk page and block any socks as soon as they appear, they are easy enough to spot due to common themes, style of editing and the nature of allegations/insults thrown. Experience has shown that this user will dominate a talk/article page faster than Russian Vine takes over a garden given half a chance, so speed of response is essential.
I am also being subject to off-wiki attacks on the website that is run by this user [220].
Response checkuser finds Shortskirtlonglegs to be unrelated to the previous socks of the 195 editor. This is a plain fact of life; with anonymous editing, there is always the possibility that a banned user will come back so skillfully that he can't be detected with confidence. I am not convinced in this case although it is possible, and without checkuser confirmation, I am unwilling to block. You could try to find another admin willing to investigate. Ultimately 195 was blocked for being abusive and making legal threats; if these new editors do not do that, there's not much to be done except attempt to follow the regular dispute resoluiton route (RFC and mediation) and/or ask ArbCom to reconsider the case. Thatcher13101:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks for looking into this. I am reasonably sure it is a disruptive account of some sort for several reasons even if the mechanical tests don't show it. Is it OK to follow the normal dispute resolution process when an arbitration request is pending, in progress etc? Regards Bksimonb08:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And Green108? Should I start posting NPA warnings and escalate that to WP:PAIN? Or ask for an RFc on this editor's behaviour? Or a Wikiquette alert noticeboard? That's the biggest problem right now. That's what I was referring to as already being queued as an arbitration issue. Sorry I didn't make that clear in my previous post. Regards Bksimonb11:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:PAIN has been dismantled. Some of Green's content edits seemed to be adding good sources to previously disputed material, so that may have to stand. If he is making improper personal comments about other editors certainly wikiquette would be the place to start, followed by a user conduct RFC and/or mediation. (NPA template messages rarely have the intended effect, I'm afraid, but a brief personally worded note to the effect that, "while we disagree about some we can work out content agreements without getting personal" might help and even if not, would demonstrate good faith on your part.) Thatcher13116:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I agree that a lot of the edits are useful, although it is strange that Green108 has not edited so prolifically before. I have filed a Wikiquette alert and it seems that Talkabout is kindly offering to mediate [221] if required. Let's see how it goes. I may have over-reacted, in which case I apologise from distracting you from your duties. I would still like arbcom to review the case since it is likely there will be more disruption in the future and there are also at least three known editors connected with the critical website in operation on the page. This is a problem since, as an example, corrections to obvious bias are being reverted [222] with some strange edit comments. There is also an imbalance in favour of negative statements about the subject which I can see getting worse with time. Regards Bksimonb17:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
user:Aivazovsky is part of the ArbCom [223] but despite the 1RR injunction that mandates leaving Talk page comments for all reverts and changes, has modified the Qazakh page (History of the page [224]) without leaving proper edit summary and more importantly, any comments on the Talk pages. The appropriate diff is:
User has been edit warring on the talk page to delete comments he disagrees with, and has been reverted by multiple other users at this point. From his commenting style and ISP, it's pretty clear that this is Supreme_Cmdr (talk·contribs) who has been banned by the Arbcom for one year. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Derek_Smart. This situation could use some admin attention. I asked for a semi protect of the talk page over on WP:RFPP but it was turned down based on lack of talk page activity. Things have ramped up a bit since then. - Ehheh14:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFCU Clerk note • If you have evidence of editing with socks, it should be posted on Requests for Checkuser. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Resolved
Confirmed Thatcher131 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Not checked
