Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive15

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344

Waterboarding and ProtektYaNutz

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

Neutral Good indefinitely banned from Wikipedia for violating his ban from waterboarding-related pages for 6 months with sock account ProtektYaNutz, and Shibumi2 indefinitely banned as a proven (CU, evidence) sockpuppet of BryanFromPalatine.

ProtektYaNutz (talk · contribs) appears to be the reincarnation of an editor who has already been sanctioned. They serve a smörgåsbord of logical fallacies: [1] [2] [3] [4] I recommend this account be banned from that article for 6 months also. Jehochman ^Talk 19:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am no reincarnation. This is my first and only Wikipedia account. Thank you having the decency of telling me on my talk page that you were doing this. ProtektYaNutz (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:ProtektYaNutz has also been reported to WP:UAA at 19.16 as linked. EJF (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Username has been blocked. It's clearly offensive. -- Longhair\^talk 21:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I granted the user's unblock request, and they have requested a username change. I think we should consider whether the editor should be banned from this article. Here's the latest edit. [5] We don't need champions for The Truth®. Jehochman ^Talk 22:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we simply be applying the "#Ducks" principle as discussed in the previous thread just below? Topic ban. If this is a legitimate contributor with an interest in NPOV, let them demonstrate that for six months or so on some other set of articles, just not on Waterboarding. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is classic DUCK territory. The ban on Neutral Good should be applied here. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 23:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we consider this a likely sleeper sock, probably of Neutral Good, then this account should be indefinitely blocked and we should strongly consider indeffing Neutral Good as well. I'm going to do this unless anyone objects. MastCell ^Talk 23:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ProtektYaSelf (talk · contribs) is the new account name. Here is the latest in anti-torture rhetoric: [6]. It really looks like the same user. Same POV, same style, and just incredible timing. Jehochman ^Talk 23:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when three meddling busybodies like myself, Jehochman, and Moreschi agree that someone is a sock, what could possibly go wrong?! I've indefinitely blocked both ProtektYaSelf (as a sock) and Neutral Good (for using socks to circumvent his topic ban). This is based on the overlapping interests and rhetoric and the timing of the reactivation of PYS. Neutral Good was already on millimeter-thin ice given his lengthy past history of disruption. MastCell ^Talk 23:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure to answer any inquiries promptly. Jehochman ^Talk 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Sorry, that was probably poor taste on my part. MastCell ^Talk 00:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Good unblock request, allegations of framing and set up

Note: User_talk:Neutral_Good#Blocked_2 Lawrence § t/e 14:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another unblock request now. Lawrence § t/e 14:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's always good to get uninvolved admins to review something like this. MastCell ^Talk 16:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get the sense that RFCU will likely be inconclusive, but would it hurt to try? GRBerry 17:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone else wants to ask for it, go ahead. I'm not because I don't feel like dealing through March with more new SPAs that have astonishing Wikimarkup skills and knowledge of prior archived arguments on certain pages accusing me of harassment and stalking. The last business quarter was plenty for me. Lawrence § t/e 17:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm all for keeping Nuts blocked or topic-banned, as a disruptive meatpuppet if nothing else, but I wouldn't necessarily do the simultaneous block on the presumed puppetmaster if we don't have more concrete evidence of actual socking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, checkuser has been inconclusive and has then been trumpeted as "proof of innocence" by some of the involved parties here, to the despair of the actual checkusers. Since meatpuppetry has been a central issue, I think behaviorally based blocks are appropriate here. As to User:Neutral Good - I think the timing (he stopped editing immediately after the topic ban, and the new account immediately picked up where he left off) is highly suggestive, and it's not like we're losing a constructive editor here. I find the rationale that he was "set up" to be highly unconvincing. However, if anyone else feels strongly, I'd be fine with having Neutral Good unblocked and simply holding him to the terms of his 6-month topic ban and general editing probation. MastCell ^Talk 19:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel strongly about it. You have your pound of flesh with your six month topic ban and he was obeying it. He deserves RFCU. If RFCU shows different geographic area then Neutral Good deserves not only unblock but an apology from you. Furthermore the length of his topic ban should be reduced by 10 times the length of his block and you should be brought up for Arbitration Enforcement as a warning to other overzealous admins. You said, "if anyone else feels strongly, I'd be fine with having Neutral Good unblocked and simply holding him to the terms of his 6-month topic ban and general editing probation." I am "anyone." Unblock him. Or give him an RFCU at the very least. There has been absolutely no hesitation to use RFCU many times as a weapon for attacks against him in the past, and that repeated provocation is undoubtedly a factor in his combative attitude. You torment him and attack him and then wonder why he has an attitude issue. Hesitation to use RFCU now will confirm that you do not deserve admin tools. If it shows a different geographic region then it should be announced as absolute proof that this time, he is innocent. Shibumi2 (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU cannot be used to show unrelatedness, no matter how often it is applied. Your logic fails. Moreover, MastCell has no CU access, and RFCU requests to demonstrate "innocence" are rejected as a matter of policy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more clear, Shibumi2: while anyone's opinion is welcome, I'm most interested in the opinion of uninvolved admins and editors in good standing. I will be granted checkuser access two or three days after hell freezes over - that said, I'm open to having a checkuser look at this, but as I said above, behavioral considerations are the primary driver here rather than IP logs. My goal is not to obtain any quantity of flesh from anyone, but to make waterboarding and related articles editable and improveable once again. I think both blocks are justifiable on those grounds alone, though again I would welcome the opinion of uninvolved admins and editors in good standing, and would not object if another admin were to take responsibility for unblocking Neutral Good and placing him back on his 6-month topic ban and general editing probation. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now I am not an editor in good standing? It has been two months since I was unblocked and I have been on my best behavior. How many years of continued good behavior and how many thousand quality mainspace edits will it take for me to be an editor in good standing? Why should I bother even trying? Shibumi2 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're a heavily involved editor, and were nominated for adminship in a now-deleted RfA by Neutral Good, all of which plays a role. Whether an account with a dedicated focus on a single contentious article and 2 blocks in the past few months, including one for abusive sockpuppetry, can be described as an editor in good standing is a judgement call. MastCell ^Talk 22:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell if Neutral Good wants to be a Wikipedian so bad, give him a final chance. But first complaint and he is out for good. Enough is enough. We all have better things to do than guard waterboarding for NPOV. So keep the 6 month ban on waterboarding but let him edit other articles. Let's see if he can win our trust. But I doubt if zebras can change their stripes. Igor Berger (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought

I've had a look at the contributions of BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs) and socks. While there doesn't appear to be much of a match between BryanFromPalatine and Neutral Good (talk · contribs), Shibumi2 (talk · contribs) does look more likely as a potential sock of Bryan: there's the same focus on Free Republic. I think a thorough checkuser investigation is in order here. Has this possibility been investigated? Moreschi (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has been, somewhere in here and here. The suspicion has hung around; you could ask a checkuser to look into it again, but the technical evidence has repeatedly been inconclusive. MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BFP previously has been very adept apparently at making use of a variety of ISP connections, and there is no shortage of open wifi and who knows what else, let alone proxies. If I wanted to, I could (in a medium sized city here) simply walk out the door on this laptop, and probably make my next ten posts over the next hour from ten unique ISPs. Now imagine if you were in an area with a major city, ala Chicago (BFP) or someplace truly huge like NYC, London, or Hong Kong. Technical evidence is only going to catch the really stupid or really lazy. Intelligence on our part will corral the ones who think they are clever. Lawrence § t/e 22:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, it doesn't look as though Shibumi2 (talk · contribs) has been directly tested against BryanFromPalatine. Might be worth a check. Even if not, this looks to be the connection where we could, potentially, make out the strongest case for sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry (off-wiki collusion) based on behaviour pattern. IMO this is something that needs looking into. Moreschi (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check my evidence section in the Waterboarding RFAR, check the evidence there from Eschoir and BenBurch, and just look at Talk:Free Republic. There's ample evidence, but unfortunately people either don't care about that article or just don't want to get involved due to the sheer nastiness of the previous business. Lawrence § t/e 22:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good heavens. Hats off to Lawrence. Reading through Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence, Henrik's evidence in particular, I would say there is ample evidence that Shibumi2 (talk · contribs) is either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of BryanFromPalatine. Thoughts? Moreschi (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shibumi2 was caught sockpuppeting at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek. Neutral Good had nominated Shibumi2 for adminship.[7] (admin only) It sure does look like some sort of sock or meat puppetry is still continuing. Jehochman ^Talk 23:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick CU of Shibumi2 does indicate a strong geographical likelihood of being BFP. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be OK to ask if my and Henrik's painful triangulation work on the various socking IPs on the RFAR were right after all? Not looking for "satisfaction", just if that absurd amount of work we did was worth it after all for being at least on the right track. Lawrence § t/e 00:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the fringe benefits of recusing myself from a case is that I don't have to pay any attention whatsoever to it. All I did here was look at the IPs used by Shibumi2, and one or more of them was sufficient for me to say "likely". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, J. Lawrence § t/e 00:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: More evidence from this very page: "MastCell is on a blocking rampage and every editor he seeks to ban for ever is someone who challenges left-wing orthodoxy. Even if the editor is left-wing himself." I mean, honestly. Add in this edit here:

If this troublesome disruptor was "a long-time opponent of the conservative views" then he was not conservative. Since this sworn statement was filed in 1999 this disruptor was not a Giuliani supporter. Sweetness and Light is a blog not a sworn statement, and is not a reliable source. Tech Law Journal is not owned by Robinson so this statement is not self-published. Robinson and his attorney attached many exhibits supporting his statements so they are not "unduly self-serving." The fact checking mechanism here was federal judge Morrow and law firm working for Los Angeles Times. This disruptor had become their witness in the copyright lawsuit. If Robinson had made provably false statements about their witness in a sworn affidavit, he would have been sanctioned by Judge Morrow in some way. Probably sent to prison for perjury and you would have already put those sanctions into this article and the article about the lawsuit. But there was no sanction, so the law firm could find no false statements, so these facts may be assumed to be thoroughly checked.

Honestly, who even that is a native of the USA here has this extremely intimate knowledge of a very, very, very niche American subsect of one political party and extreme fringe sub-sect of that party? This is like BryanFromPalatine Playbook 101. Lawrence § t/e 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More offsite evidence tying Shibumi2 to BFP, who at one point (it's buried in the Free Republic archives) he had some nasty spat with local courts in IL, and mentioned it several times here as well under one of his various names. I found that via this search. That forum is prime BFP territory as well, it looks like a more colorful Free Republic. Lawrence § t/e 00:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i previously had grave concern about Shibumi2, Neutral Good et all being meat/sockpuppets of Bryan From Palatine, but due to the fact the Waterboarding ArbCom was in full swing, so after requesting ArbCom guidance on the Waterboarding ArbCom case [8] I let things sit.. but indeed there's nothing new that makes me think anything but per DUCK, these folks are related, and need to be taken care of. SirFozzie (talk) 01:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It just never stops. Whenever I choose to edit an article, I educate myself about the subject. I have read everything I can find about Japanese warships, waterboarding and Free Republic. For doing my best to make myself a better editor and Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, this is my reward. My knowledge condemns me. Shibumi2 (talk) 01:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will be your edits that condemn you, if anything, like this passage from your project coordinator campaign last year:

“ I wish to add this to my previous response if this may be allowed. On another project called Free Republic, there is much conflict between editors. One side in the conflict is not honorable. The other side is one new editor, defending himself alone and with great honor and skill. ”

The one new editor, the one with all the honor and skill, that was User:DeanHinnen. You have been reposting material verbatim from him and BFP since your return to this article. This can be domstrated as follows: If there is a way to search diffs, an administrator should trace the oft inserted, oft reverted quote "leftist . . . agents provocateurs". It is a misquotation - the original source says "leftists" so the person using (or misusing) the quote "leftist" cannot have gotten it from the source, I put to you, only from BFP, his successors and assigns. Eschoir (talk) 02:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. Shibumi2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is blocked indefinitely as a sockppuppet of BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Moreschi (talk) 11:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a block notice on Shibumi2 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Lawrence § t/e 17:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the additional note on technical evidence from jpgordon, I think this is open-and-shut. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests

ProtektYaNutz (talk · contribs) and Neutral Good (talk · contribs) still have pending unblock requests. Lawrence § t/e 17:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined both because I think the duck test is conclusive enough in this case. Sandstein (talk) 18:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Television season pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ScienceApologist

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

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

ScienceApologist is subject to an editing restriction imposed by the ArbCom. [10][11] He continues to engage in uncivil personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith.[12] I have asked him to strike his uncivil comments[13] and he has declined to do so.[14][15] —Whig (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ScienceApologist again

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

No action taken, or needed. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I am brining a complaint about ScienceApologist for attacking my integrity. Previously, I complained that, with his knowing I monitor the EVP article, he had called me a moron, "This topic is pretty ridiculous, almost to the point of patent nonsense. Almost everyone who believes in this stuff is basically a moron or an absolute wacko, so it's a little difficult to write an intro that they would find fair...." [16]

I also said that he called me a liar at [17] where he said, "...They make up all kinds of things at their website. ..." and " ...some website that Tom Butler made up one day."

My complaint now is that he has said, "Tom Butler is not an expert in anything but his own opinions. The AAEVP is not a professional organization and has no standards for scholarship. The entire subject suffers from rank amateurism and lack of rigor. This is something that will be addressed in future incarnations of this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)" at [18][reply]

SA is insulting people based on his opinion of the validity of what those people believe. He has specifically called me a liar without evidence, and now, he is making belittling remarks specifically about me for which he has no evidence. Probably more of a concern is his continuing arrogance to say that his future edits will be based on his expressed assumptions.

It seems illogical for a person who does not believe in the existence of these things to be so determined to prove in Wikipedia that they do not exist. SA is showing himself to be incapable of civil discourse or of having a neutral point of view in editing. Tom Butler (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this complaint is part of a battle to control the article. Gaming the system to gain the upper hand in content disputes is not allowed. Those who do so may be blocked for disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 17:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is block shopping, pure and simple. I'm far more tempted to block the reporter than I am SA. Moreschi (talk) 17:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please? Pretty please? We really need to start handing out blocks for false civility complaints. They are becoming a real annoyance, and make it truly unpleasant to edit some of the more contentious articles. I'd rather put up with someone calling me an asshole every once in a while than someone that accuses me of being uncivil every time his arguments are bad.Kww (talk) 19:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, the topic is obvious quackery, and the "AA-EVP" website is a sick joke. Seriously, calling a "spiritualist" to make a ghost go away? I fully agree with SA's evaluation - proponents who believe in this stuff are ~~morons~~ thoroughly uninformed and misguided persons, and proponents who don't are lying. This is covered under WP:SPADE. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SA does raise a good point about you "monitoring" the article even though you are the creator of AA-EVP. Looks to be a clear cut case of COI, especially considering the fact it is the 1st EL on the article. One has to question the use of this website for any sort of scholarship on the article. Maybe we should look into that a little bit further. Oh, and yes, this is like the 4th (maybe 5th) complaint against SA in a very short period of time. It's obviously an attempt, as Jehochman mentions, to game the system for control of the article. Total shopping spree here. Baegis (talk) 18:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment "moron and whacko" is excessive; if I could get away with calling SA's friend Ronz that, I would, but I'd expect to be blocked (again) for uncivil language, if I did. It very much concerns me that the "pro-science" (anti-anti-science) camp seems to get away with harsh behaviour. OTOH, the comment "lack of rigor" (etc) is mostly right. My own view is that (1) paranormal researchers ought to understand that their work is not accepted as science (otherwise it would be normal research) but that (2) SA should lighten up. Not everyone who pursues funny paths is actually a moron, and it's not helpful even to call morons, "morons", generally. Pete St.John (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. Is this "bash on SA" month? We should rename WP:AE to WP:SA :P seicer | talk | contribs 19:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, this page has a purpose; and it is not to be a battlefield in the war over fringe science and parascience and ... topics. It is to be a venue where editors can report diffs that they think are violations of ArbComm imposed editing restrictions, and uninvolved admins can evaluate them and report actions taken. All other posts here should be limited to providing diffs and a bare minimum of context setting. SA is subject to ArbComm imposed restrictions due to a history of poor conduct. Encouraging him in that conduct is not helping him learn to engage in good conduct. Please revise your behavior accordingly. GRBerry 20:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teach me, Master GRBerry. I want to learn from you so badly. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not my turn, I got the #User:ScienceApologist last one. GRBerry 20:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues: one is this particular claim of incivility, which I'll leave it to other admins to evaluate. The other is that there really is an excessive number of unfounded reports here at WP:AE on ScienceApologist. At best, these have a "boy who cried wolf" effect and lead any substantive complaints to be taken less seriously. At worst, as Jehochman and Moreschi have suggested above, they constitute frivolous litigation and block-shopping in an attempt to wear SA down and gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Either way, I would strongly suggest a bit more selectivity in the enforcement requests filed here. MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry, you said that an uninvolved admin should evaluate. I agree, but as far as I can tell, no uninvolved admin have commented here. The admins who have commented, have been either deeply involved with SA or have been at his defense for a very long time (MastCell, Moreschi). So, why not have the uninvolved admins stop posting?

The issue here is that SA stated that I am not an expert in anything but my own opinions. That is frankly slander and SA must that. Also, this latest comment must be considered with previous comments. He was blocked for ninety-six hours but Raul486 unblocked him after only twelve hours over the objections of multiple other admins ... including the blocking admin.

Please consider the larger issue. I am not forum shopping and I would not be complaining if SA had not decided to comment as he did. I am back with a complaint because my previous complaint did no good. If you are telling me that you approve of SA's behavior, then I will consider that to be Wikipedia policy and stop complaining. Tom Butler (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am an uninvolved admin. I checked the diff, and found the comment frank but true. I don't see a substantial civility problem, but I d see a witch hunt. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, I said it was not my turn - and expressed that the level of peanut gallery commentary this series of reports generate is not being helpful. I am an uninvolved admin; but since it isn't my turn I'm not investigating this one. GRBerry 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Lord, this is what, the third attempt by the paranormal/fringe group to pin something on SA in the past week or so? Can anybody say "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks"? We've got to show people that incessant badgering and abuse of process carries a price. Unfortunately I'm not an uninvolved admin, but enough is enough. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am uninvolved and I completely agree that this is getting ridiculous. What about a noticeboard probation for those people who keep showing back up here with frivolous complaints? Shell ^babelfish 04:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's moronic the way some people deal with disruptive and uncivil editors on wikipedia, indeed it is patent nonsense. Anyone who believes otherwise is a moron or an absolute wacko [19]. Editors such as Stephan Schulz have no expertise except in their own opinions [20]. , and Schulz has no professional standards as an admin whatsoever, and makes up things he says out of wholecloth [21].

But saying that kind of thing isn't a personal attack. Thinking that it is would be to get ridiculous, a frivolous complaint that should be punished. Enough is enough [22]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the whole wiki does get a bit venomous. With sparks flying every which way. We suppose to be a community not Wiki World War Three! Vandals are one thing. But when a group of editors go after one user just to WP:POINT in the name of disrupt, sure sounds like Crusaders sent by the Inquisition. Should we not just try to preserve NPOV and have peace reign in the Wiki Land? Igor Berger (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that these diffs are presented out of context, yet again. For instance, the "moron" comment was clearly inappropriate. SA apologized and struck it, and was blocked for it anyway. It's misleading to present the diff as evidence of unchecked incivility, but to fail to mention the inconvenient facts that a) the comment was subsequently struck by the author, and b) he actually was punished for it nonetheless. Martin, I would honestly be sad to see you go - I think that despite your difficulties, you have a lot to contribute here - but you're flogging this way too hard. MastCell ^Talk 05:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, you've now twice promised to stay away from ScienceApologist. Can I ask why you've waded in yet again? You've demonstrated in the past that you have difficulties dealing with each other; lets not keep inflaming those problems. Shell ^babelfish 05:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this forum supports a bit of WP:GAME. Now why doesn't that suprise me. But will the GAMERS be stopped, hell no, they are so nice and ... civil ... about it all. Time to throw WP:DE and WP:TE away as well it seems... Shot info (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, I don't ever recall saying I'd try to stay away from him, tho I have tried. I said to you that I'd stay away from one article. I'd stay away from him if I could, but to do so I'd have to stay entirly away from WP, because I'd have to stay away from all the articles I'm interested in: if I found some he didn't know about, he'd follow me there. In fact, I have a list of articles that need editing, but I don't touch them becasue it would attract his and other's attention. Thatcher, a biased admin, warned me to stay away, and even blamed me for the way SA acts. I see now that not bothering to understand the context is really a theme here.

But even if I did say that, I have nothing left to lose. Go ahead and indef block me if you think I deserve it.

People are right that the context is not being dealt with here- that is very much true. But the context... well, where to begin? You could start here [23], but you would actually have to read some of SA's edits, the way articles he comes to just tend to get locked, or the way that we get to consensus with other skeptical editors and suddenly he comes in and 10 min (literally) later the article is locked. And you'd have to read some of the former complaints against him, and his full block log, not just the one on his SA account but about 8 or more others, and the paranormal ArbCom which is being militated against and ignored. In short, while the rules of WP are fine, the context is that there is a group of highly uncivil editors who will do anything to push SPOV- and Shell, I know you also believe in that. But what they are trying to do is entirly against NPOV and WEIGHT.

Further, they are protected by admins not because the rules or anything favor them, but because the admis agree. When SA is blocked, he gets unblocked purely because he has a former Arbitrator (Raul) for a friend, over several other admin's objections.

Those admins are not posting here- only the ones who agree with SA. They don't want to be involved. They and many, many, more agree with me. And there are many, many many others who know that SA and a lot of other editors (see page linked above) are trying to subvert WP by pushing SPOV instead of NPOV, and even think that WP:CIV is beneath them (Arritt tries to get them to not be so uncivil for political reasons, saying at the same time that it's stupid that you have to be civil).

So yes, there is a huge problem on this page with people not taking the context into consideration. If the WP rules were changed to be SPOV, then things would be fine. There wouldn't be a fight, because everyone who said "NPOV not SPOV," and "follow WP:WEIGHT," would just be wrong, and get tossed out. The articles would then not be attack articles, as sometimes they are now, but would be just the SPOV, and that would be WP. But the context is that WP is being consciously subverted, and no one will do anything about it because no one is brave enough.

SA has it right in a lot of ways, and among those is that admins have turned into puffballs- except some of the admins who love SA and blame others for his actions. And WP is a war because of it, and I'm tired of being treated as a wacko, and seeing others treated badly.

If you can't do anything about it, too tied up for whatever reason, then ok, but you forfiet the participation in fringe areas of anyone who is neutral or nice. Neutral, because neutral people tend to be the nicer ones.

MastCell, I don't know what to say. You tried to get me thrown out of WP, didn't you, over the course of two very nasty ArbComs? And now you're getting what you want, and you want to take it back? Well, thanks. I'm not sure what that means. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes those stains needs a little, or in this case, a whole lot of WP:SOAP to get rid of. Somebody going to stop the gaming? No, nobody? Shot info (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support Martin in these statements. This isn't about SA, this is about the high jacking of Wikipedia which self describes itself as a community of editors, first. Name calling, false intellectual arrogance, and subtle acts of stonewalling have no place in a community of people whose first objective should be in this instance the collective gathering of knowledge, whatever kind of knowledge that is. Wikipedia is full of articles that have little or no intellectual import.Its an encyclopedia thats why not a institution of higher learning. Incivility of any kind is not acceptable deportment by Wikipedia standards nor are incivility and the good editing mutually exclusive as has been suggested here. This is probably the wrong place for this statement but my tolerance for this kind of behaviour has just reached a limit.(olive (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Littleolive oil and Martinphi, thanks...you both have my support. For an example of the frustration level, I would suggest having a look at this tortured dialog. WNDL42 (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I would like to propose an alternative hypothesis, one that also assumes good faith on the part of those who think SA is being wronged, here. WNDL42 (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a couple of relevant comments, here and here. I'd suggest if SA needs an environment where he can "discuss idiocy plainly", that he get himself a blog. WNDL42 (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several valid points on both sides here. The basic problem with this AE report is that it submits nothing new about SA, using diffs that have already been looked at--this does nto help the submitter's case at all so I can see why some are calling it forum shopping. Consequently, I see the frustration of the science camp. It is also quite true that there have been some baseless civility reports here lately about SA. Pete St John’s and GRBerry’s summations are spot on and highlight what I've been saying all along--it's not what SA tries to do (defend science), it's his behavior and language that have historically been the problem. Note that SA has gotten better about this lately. MP makes valid points about blocks/unblocks. I can also see the frustration of the paranormal camp as pointed out by Little Olive Oil and she makes excellent points. All disputes begin when both sides accept only their view as the truth and refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the other side--this does not mean you agree with them, it means you recognize their right to present their viewpoint. This is how I see it&mdasn;this is a collaborative encyclopedia and the paranormal side and science side both have a right to present their side...this perforce means that editors have to deal with those who may not agree with them...actions that hinder that interaction only make things difficult for everyone. Those involved in this years long dispute need dispute need to ask themselves something—Do I want to continue to battle the other side and be in serial disputes or do I want to work with the other side to make a quality Featured Article we can all be proud of? The FA standards and review process are solid enough to see through whatever issues either side is concerned about. I have been involved in several FAs that have taken poor articles, even stubs, to FA in a month or less--that is what can happen when editors put their differences aside for the common good. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that the civility card is being overplayed. (Of course, as I hail from a city that has booed Santa Claus, I guess my take on this might be a little skewed :-P) Seriously though, civility is nice and all, and can be very beneficial, but it is not the be all and end all: that position should be reserved for truth, reality, verifiability, knowledge, reliability, and more knowledge. I'll take a knowledgeable but snarky editor over an amenable but clueless editor any day. Many of the most brilliant minds in science and the rest of academe have been prickly buggers who don't play well with others but their accomplishments are far more important than their lack of "civility" Jim62sch^dissera! 13:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would play better in a research lab, but this is a collaborative encyclopedia. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a matter of being overplayed, in this case, it's misplayed. SA has gone too far in the past, is subject to Arbcom limitations, and doesn't always live within the restrictions that he has been placed under. No doubt about that. No admin has the right to decide that civility isn't important, or that he won't enforce the guidelines. The problem is that SA didn't say anything uncivil in this case about an editor, he said negative things about a person, and those negative things were completely relevant to the topic of the article. Tom Butler's site isn't academic, he has no recognized credentials, and his expertise isn't corroborated by others. The AAEVP isn't a professional organization. Those are facts, and there is no getting around them. They need to be borne in mind while evaluating sources and information on the EVP article. There's no getting around that. Becoming a Wikipedia editor doesn't suddenly make you immune to criticism on Wikipedia ... imagine the loophole that that would create. It's within any Wikipedia editor's rights to state negative things about other people, even if they are editors, so long as it is done with with a factual basis, is relevant to the topic at hand, and is done without the use of pejorative terms.Kww (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of civility is one of the tactics of the playground bully. The Tutor (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest, respectfully, that there should no "camps" . My points, I hope, are references to more fundamental aspects of Wikipedia policy. I personally have no views on the paranormal articles discussed at this point. Policy could and should protect editors form the kinds of discussion on this page, should underpin editing, are the "bottom line". Thats why there are policies. Perhaps we need to take these policies much more seriously and to use them as the safety net they can be, when in doubt as to any of this kind of behaviour(olive (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Tutor, you hit the nail on the head. And might I suggest that what is asserted here as an "improvement" in SA's behavior is in reality no such thing. SA has been extensively and explicitly "coached" on how to remain just barely within the boundaries of the letter of the law, while flagrantly and repeatedly and unapologetically violating the spirit of the law, ad nauseum. Anybody wanna see some of the diffs of this coaching? WNDL42 (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. And as far as I'm concerned, it is bad style to make claims and say "I have lots of evidence, do you really want to see it"? If you think its relevant, bring it up. If not, don't tease us. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, guys. An incident was raised. It would appear that none of the admins who have reviewed this feel that the incident represents a breach of ScienceApologist's ArbCom-imposed sanctions. That's probably where this thread should end. MastCell ^Talk 21:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse is wrong that there wasn't anything new here: even after being blocked and released, SA made another attack, saying that TB is only an expert in his own opinions. When seen in context, that should have been plenty.

I object to seeing it as science vs. paranormal. I've seen plenty of pseudoscientific thinking on both sides.

"Tom Butler's site isn't academic, he has no recognized credentials, and his expertise isn't corroborated by others. " Why are you repeating this? If it had been true, and if SA hadn't know it was not true, having been informed in the past, it wouldn't have been bad at all.

•Jim62sch is right that civility is really only a side issue, a way for both sides to complain about the others- ScienceApologist referred to me in his ArbCom statement as a "particularly uncivil editor" if I recall. The real problem is POV pushing and disruption. Deal with that, and I don't care what you call me.

If SA and others don't learn not to be disruptive and stop POV pushing in the form of a mis-interpretation of WEIGHT (most of an article on a fringe subject should be about the mainstream reaction to that subject) and in the form of derogatory language and biased presentation, there will never be a solution, except they simply withdraw. I would disapprove of anyone trying to keep negative information out of an article, but the reader is to be informed, not hammered.

WNDL is right that they have been trying without much success to coach each other to be civil. Here is but one link, and there are many many many more. Note the scare quotes, Arritt is the prime tutor- though he can't hold himself in either. [24] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now it's not only bad to be uncivil, but also bad to encourage someone to be civil and to point out that civility benefits not only the community but the editor himself? Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's bad to coach someone -some many- on how to be civil in order that they can get away with their disruption and POV pushing. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making uselessly broad accusations. Without diffs your remarks are disruptive. Jehochman ^Talk 22:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Read this page. It backs up everything I've said. [25] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This a self fulfiling prophesy which you trying to avoid. If you do not want good user to leave why push them so hard and question their NPOV? Why go out of a way to find a sock on someone just to get your POV? Sure looks like WP:SNOW not consensus. Maybe WP:tea is in order and come back and work together. Igor Berger (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who you're talking to... can't quite make sense. Unless the socks of Davkal on the Arritt page. Or the idea that Rationalist had socks. Or something. SA is under ArbCom sanction for having multiple socks. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I hate to slap "archive" tags on a discussion, but I'm about to do so here. This is argumentation. It has no place on WP:AE when there is clearly no enforcement action forthcoming. Take it elsewhere, please. MastCell ^Talk 04:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chrisjnelson

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

blocked 72 hours, details within

Back in September, there was an Arbitration case between Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) and Jmfangio (now indefinitely blocked for unrelated crime). The final decision of that case was that Chrisjnelson be held to, in essence, a "1RR" rule, where he may not make more than one revert on a page in a 24-hour span.[26] The restriction has a six-month range before termination, which would be March 26.

Yesterday, February 29, Chrisjnelson appears to have reverted another user, Pinkkeith (talk · contribs), two times (first revert, second revert), as well as calling the edits vandalism (which I don't think they were). Ksy92003 (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three times actually, and the rule is one per week. There is discussion on the talk page, and Chris is right on the content issue, as is transparently seen here. But being wrong about content is not vandalism. Blocked 72 hours. GRBerry 22:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Ferrylodge

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

In the clarification or expansion requested here, one arbitrator said that "article" applies to all namespaces, while one said it was ambiguous and depended on the case. In the concurrent Macedonia clarification, four arbitrators (including both who responded to the request here) agreed that "page" applies to all namespaces while "article" applies only to article space, and that "this as a standard response applicable to other cases with the same basic question". Having previously determined that the article was not being disrupted, the Macedonia clarification makes it clear that the talk space is not included. As has been said before, there is a level of talk page disruption that would be actionable, but this would be ordinary administrative action.GRBerry 21:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subsequent highlights include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(undent)Perhaps it should be mentioned here that Mastcell has requested action from ArbCom in this matter. [27]Ferrylodge (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late chime-in here; I just noticed this. I ran across it while reviewing the David Reardon article, to which I've now made one small contribution, which was immediately reverted.

I had sought to fix an edit to the article by IronAngelAlice, which introduced an inaccuracy into the article. In 1988 Surgeon General Koop wrote to President Reagan, and in his letter he said that "scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." However, IronAngelAlice's edit replaced that quote with a transplanted fragment of a statement that Koop had made elsewhere, and reported it as being in the letter to Reagan. She also made her edit with no Talk page discussion. Rather than just fix it in the article, I sought consensus by discussing the problem on the Talk page; I then edited the article with what I hoped would be wording that would be acceptable to all: I included both the accurate quote from Koop's letter to Reagan, and also the quote which Alice had inserted, but with a correct attribution to where Koop had said it.

The response I got was an immediate revert, with no Talk page discussion at all, to an obviously one-sided version, which cherry-picked from what the cited Washington Monthly article said, to push one POV.

That gave me a taste for what other editors of that article have had to put up with. One of the editors there who has patiently tried to make constructive, well-sourced edits is Strider12. I went to her Talk page and noticed an active debate between MastCell and Ferrylodge, about the very set of Koop comments that were mischaracterized by IronAngelAlice in the David Reardon article! Ferrylodge quoted addition snippets of the Koop testimony, direct from the transcripts, that made it obvious that IronAngelAlice's mischaracterization of them was far more severe that I had realized. In particular, Koop testified to Congress that, ""...there is no doubt about the fact that some people have severe psychological effects after abortion..."

So I went to Ferrylodge's contribs, and read some more of his contributions for myself. I did not read them all -- he's been a very prolific contributor for several years, on many topics. But my conclusion is that Ferrylodge is a wonderful asset to Wikipedia, and his contributions do not in the slightest resemble MastCell's description of them.

What I found was consistently careful, well-written, well-sourced information from a thoughtful and careful contributor who obviously knows what he's talking about. Ferrylodge has diligently sought to make constructive contributions, in a very difficult editing environment. Note that MastCell's ally, IronAngelAlice, is a one-topic editor who has a history of abusive behavior. Her previous ID was permanently blocked for it, and this one was blocked for a week, but she's [at it again].

MastCell is also trying to get Strider12 banned. What a coincidence that he's trying to get rid of the two editors who have made the most constructive, well-sourced contributions to the abortion-related articles. NCdave (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC) and NCdave (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. MastCell ^Talk 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NCDave: What does it take to get a Wikipedia admin desysopped? MastCell is on a blocking rampage and every editor he seeks to ban for ever is someone who challenges left-wing orthodoxy. Even if the editor is left-wing himself. What can be done about this? Shibumi2 (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is degenerating rapidly into a series of complaints about me from abusive sockpuppets and other parties with irons in various fires. In response to my request for clarification from ArbCom, the two Arbitrators who've commented in the week it's been open have suggested that the remedy applies to talk pages (which was the sticking point). Can I ask for reconsideration and action on this thread, so we can move on? MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one of those two arbitrators said, "It would usually be reasonable to check .... whether it was likely to be the then-Arbitrators' intention that a ruling apply to only mainspace." In any event, even if the Arbcom decision in my case applies fully to talk pages, there was no significant talk page disruption here, for the reasons explained above and at the ArbCom page. I continue to be flabbergasted that Mastcell insists on excluding very pertinent information about the matter in question, and has accompanied his remarks by a whole slew of blatantly false accusations against me (quote mining, original research, synthesis, POV, impatience, overlooking subscription-only sources, undermining secondary sources, et cetera, et cetera), not to mention Mastcell repeatedly raising long-ago grievances of his (e.g. Severa and Schiavo). I do agree with Mastcell about one thing: I hope that we can move on.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though it hasn't been a focus for me (or the Arbs), I've been watching the two related clarifications on the page. Do you both want me to apply my understanding of the case as I read it from the clarifications to date and then close out the thread? GRBerry 19:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so long as you feel (as I do) that there's been adequate guidance from ArbCom, that would be fine. This thread has gone on long enough. MastCell ^Talk 20:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Israeli-Palestinian conflict

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

no action needed

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles
User:Sm8900 violated this decision with this edit

Regards Suicup (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User was being sarcastic, as is clearly shown by the fact that he reverted himself two minutes later. Making jokes like that in article space is rather POINTy but fundamentally harmless. Moreschi (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Moreschi, given the quick self-revert, no action needed here. My guess is he meant what he said and then thought better of it. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on above

I appreciate the judicious manner in which this was handled. As I noted at the article talk page, at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I did mean what I said. Rlevse is quite right and perceptive in this regard. What I wrote was directly based on the explicit and implicit premises which were apparent in comments by Nishidani. I was simply trying to address what appeared to be a sudden appearance of the idea that it was possible to scrutinize one side in this conflict, and to find that that side had been wholly responsible for acts of dispossession or unfairness. So that edit was an effort to place a different set of assumptions, and make clear how the article could or might look using those assumptions going forward. So I appreciate the manner this was addressed in this regard. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zeq

Zeq was banned from editing Israeli apartheid on 6 June 2006. I can find no record of the ban having been rescinded. Yesterday Zeq edited Allegations of Israeli apartheid, which is the same article under a different name. (The ban conditions specifically anticipated the article being moved to a different name, and in any case it's obviously the same article.)

Upon review, it appears that Zeq "tested the waters" in October of last year, with edits to AoIA and a spinoff of another article he was banned from. After being caught he backed off. He acknowledged that he knew about the ban, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive314#User:Zeq potentially violating ban. Now he's trying again.

It's up to WP adminship, of course, to sort this out, but personally I don't see how it helps the project to have Zeq around at all. He's clearly here to push POV, he's using underhanded tactics, and he's a recidivist. At the very least, we don't need him cluttering up the talk pages of these articles with totally spurious nonsense: see Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid#Apartheid Vs. Huiman rights violations for one example out of many. <eleland/talkedits> 14:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the accusation of ban-evasion. The ban had a time limit which was not clearly logged. Zeq's editing in general is tendentious but I'm not in the mood to compile a whole bunch of diffs and argue over it. <eleland/talkedits> 23:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs

Recent AoIA edits: [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34], etc etc.

October 2007 edit: [35]

Response

This specific ban expired last year. The ban was from 2006 for 1(one) year which have passed. btw, it is not by ArbCom but from an administrator (as result of ArbCom probation). botom line: No case. Zeq (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For this topic, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles also applies. Zeq has not yet been formally warned with respect to this case. Yes, the ban on that article was rescinded. The RFAR log shows "Rescinded upon discussion.--Sean Black 04:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)" Sean has since renamed his account, so I won't post diffs, but I can see Sean notifying Zeq, updating the log, and updating the article talk page. I'm going to formally notify Zeq of the newer case, it just seems a good idea. GRBerry 15:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That relates to "discretionary" sanctions which can be imposed on anybody working on I-P articles. Zeq's bans are not related to that provision. And I can find no record of them being for only a year. No such duration was specified on the ANI/AE or in the log of bans. <eleland/talkedits> 15:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Report reopened, I see that Tony Sidaway rebanned after Sean had rescinded the one he issued. Need to look at further. (Eleland, I agree with you about the one year rule - I haven't found it either.) GRBerry 15:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's User:Tony Sidaway's comments on the ban. pedro gonnet - talk - 04.03.2008 15:40

The probation Arbcom imposed is indefinite and any article bans have the limits set by the admin that imposed them. There is no expiry (of one year or any other time limit) on either the probation or Tony's topic ban. Thatcher 15:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my recollection this was for one year. If I am wrong I appologize since a lot of time has passed. (seriously almost two years). Since my edits are minor and I have avoided edit war (notice all my edits are quicly reverted by a tag-team) I would suggest to reexamine the ban and maybe in the spirit of the new ArbCom rulling set an equal playig field in which all editors should act with the same level of caustion and avoid reverting and edit warring. Zeq (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the characterisric sleight of hand here. Zeq is trying to make a change rejected by all other editors, so in his terms they all become "a tag team". That's a very clear attemppt to browbeat a consensus into accepting non-consensual POV edits. RolandR (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that most or all of my edits in this article are reverted in short time . This is an issue of WP:Own - clearly what we have now is yet another attempt to control the article in a one sided way. Zeq (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked quite thouroughly, and am certain there was not a one year limit when imposed. There is a possibility that Tony came back at some point and put a limit on or otherwise shortened it, but he did not log that shortening. The ban on editing that article is still in effect. The imposed ban never included the talk page. I haven't yet reached researching the history of article edits and deciding what to do about it with respect to the original ban. GRBerry 16:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Tony's comment on the original ban, which I solicited. I ask a more experienced WP:AE admin to decide what to do. GRBerry 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GRBERRY, I don't recall the details but I do recall that a year after the ban someone told me that I can now post to those articles and I remember not using this ability. Over time I forgot the bans - really too much time has passed from them. Zeq (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been active on that article from the beginning (May 2006) and recalled something about this. I know the ban on Zeq editing that article was for limited duration, and I managed to find the first version where the notification template appeared on the talk page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&direction=next&oldid=57174523. The template clearly states that the ban expires on March 5, 2007. I believe that date was chosen because it was one year after some earlier disciplinary action against Zeq, that was extended to the article in question by Tony Sidaway. So the ban expired almost exactly one year ago. I think there is a larger point here, which is why Zeq was subjected to bans that were wildly out of proportion to the discipline imposed on other editors in the same topic area (and on this particular article) who did worse, in my opinion. I think Eleland's initial comment in this thread, especially the part about not wanting Zeq around at all, poses problems of its own such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and quite frankly, WP:KETTLE as well, and maybe someone should look at that. But on the technical point of whether Zeq is still under his own special ban from the AoIA article, it appears that he is not. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a personal comment, because I think it's merited. I never intended my ban to have any more currency than was needed. It's now nearly two years later and any problems that might have been solely due to Zeq's influences are long gone. I apologise to Zeq if this ban has hung on and prevented him contributing to the encyclopedia in a constructive way. That was never my intention. To see that its legacy has persisted for so long, and perhaps blighted his reputation unjustly, causes me great regret. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The (Tony Sidaway) 20:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony: No problem. really. Even if they ban me forever from wiki on this and I'll never be able to post again: Don't feel guilty over me. I am enjoying myself and just hope I contributed to make this a more balanced and better encyclopdia. Zeq (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Thanks 6SJ7. With this pointer I found the same diffs for the other three articles that were included in Tony's ban, and have updated the log page showing that this ban had expired. Since RFAR/Zeq was before I started editing, I don't know the full history here. The warning I issued under the more recent RFAR makes sense to me given what I do know of the history, but the old RFAR also applies and I am deferring the call about whether to apply another ban under it to a more knowledgeable admin. GRBerry 20:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Tony for his note and 6Sj& for finding what I recalled which is the ban was for 1 year. Now I think we should all look carefully how Elaland, Tarc and RonaldR are doing everything they can to control this article. I suspect that all 3 of them are actually violating the recent ArbCom Rulling by virtue of their edir/revert war. They clearly refuse to comply with request to show that their edits comply with WP:V. I don;t even need to show diffs to proce it - just look at the article history page and every edit I make is being reverted. (a WP:Own problem) so I request any admin to review the whole history in light of the last ArbCom rulling. Zeq (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ban clearly says "Zeq is banned indefinitely from 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Palestinian exodus," (one was renamed). Also the new arb case would also apply. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and indeed those two articles I did not edited them since. Here- This is a different issue . Zeq (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space Cadet again

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

24 hour block on Space Cadet and Ubudoda on restriction

Space Cadet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was placed on editing restrictions following this report. His ensuing attack of sharpest nature against the uninvolved sysop was noted but not acted on. If you have a look at his few contributions of just the last five days, you'll see much incivility, overstepping the restrictions:

Sciurinæ (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've confirmed that the warning was given by an administrator and logged, so the general restriction is in force. I looked at his actual response, and saw the IP editor's claims about it are rather overblown, and it was already dismissed by Thatcher, so shouldn't be considered now. Don't have time at this moment to investigate the current behavior, which is what should be considered now. GRBerry 18:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Space Cadet for 24 hours. It's quite marginal but a couple of the comments above violate AGF, which he's not supposed to do as per the terms of the editing restriction. At the same time, it looks as though Space Cadet was/is involved in a number of fairly heated disputes against opponents who have behaved badly themselves. This last bit needs further looking into. Moreschi (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, can you look at this diff. It seems a bit more than a marginal problem to me, and wasn't highlighted above. GRBerry 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about needing to look at others.

Starting with Gdańsk‎ & Talk:Gdańsk‎: User:Ubudoda would appear to merit warning and bringing under the general sanctions. [36] [37] [38] [39] - and those are more than 50% of this users contributions. I don't see anything else on this pair of pages.
If I read Polish, I'd investigate the discussions with LUCPOL. If an uninvolved admin that reads Polish sees them, please take a look. The edit summaries at Silesia suggest that user needs some commentary; though as LUCPOL was saying that a paragraph full of {{fact}} tags from March 2007 was unsourced he has a better leg to stand on than Space Cadet does in saying it was sourced.
Nicolaus Copernicus doesn't show me any editors that need the Digwuren warning - but a major lack of use of edit summaries and lack of use of the talk page should be addressed.
I suspect Colonel Mustard (talk · contribs) should be cautioned, but doubt that the formal warning is needed. [40] ([41] & [42]) [43]
That is all I saw, but there could be more. GRBerry 22:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC) through 23:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Ubudoda (talk · contribs) is placed under the editing restriction - probably not this chap's first account, judging by his comments on the talk pages. Using 3-letter acronyms a bit early on, he is. This is a very silly thing to say, but looks...well, not harmless, but nothing to get seriously stewed up about, particularly seeing as Space Cadet is, well, Polish. Moreschi (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Highways

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

Both restored, consensus building urged. GRBerry 18:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[44] and [45] violate Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Proposed decision#Non-contentious WikiProject decisions and project page edits to resume. --NE2 06:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The injunction says "No disputed cases shall be added to or removed". There is no evidence of a dispute on these two talk pages. If you personally wish to dispute these, start by saying so on the talk page (not be reverting, just by talking). Then, if after a reasonable period of time for the original editor to see the comments and agree or disagree they haven't self reverted, come back. GRBerry 15:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- If you check the history of Talk:Outer Drive, it was already reverted after being listed here. --NE2 15:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Yep, and the same at the other page also. I've reverted both, but it is your job to participate in consensus building on both article's talk pages. Go forth and address the substantive reasoning as best you can. GRBerry 18:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.