Edit this section for new requests
Per this arbitration case Afrocentrism and Race of ancient Egyptians (the latter of which is now titled Ancient Egyptian race controversy) are on article probation. Big-dynamo (talk · contribs) is flagrantly trolling the talk page at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy, and has now descended to flaming and personal attacks, despite being aware of the probation (thanks to the template at the top) and having received a direct warning from me in my last post to the talk page. Please ban him from the article and its talk for a good while. I would do this myself but am "involved": the article itself is largely my handiwork. Thank you. Moreschi (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Moreschi; the manner of speaking on that talk page is beyond the pale and not helpful. I suspect that the user has knowledge in this area, but is going to need to accept that Wikipedia isnt USENET. I have sternly requested that the user drops the discussion for 48 hours, and fix the civility issues or be blocked.[1] John Vandenberg (chat) 13:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Lokyz and his personal attacks
Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject since mid-December to a general civility "don't create a battleground" sanction (see the "Digwuren sanction" template and updated ArbCom ruling for details). Lokyz has already been blocked for incivility once (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive19#Lokyz), although that block was soon challenged - see report of Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars for some insights. Recently Lokyz - who certainly is aware of the need for civility - has launched a new and appalling personal attack against me: I hope you woudn't try to use AK memoirs as a source. I know the financial power of this organization veterans. Are you sponsored by them? I am highly offended with this slander of my motivations, and I hope appropriate sanctions will be used to prevent such harassment from taking place again.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- So says a person who last time got himself unblocked form WP:3RR via IRC (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive134#Piotrus_incident: policy corrections needed either way). A proponent of civility who, behind the back of his opponents calls them "POV trolls".
- I also suggest anyone who sees it to take a look at this thread which, along with the current one, exemplifies Piotrus' resorting to seeking opponents' blocks as a prime method of DR. This has been commented upon many enough times and this is getting tiresome. This looks like exactly a repeated attempt of the same thing.
- Using WP:CIV as a tool to win content disputes is not new from Piotrus. It is ironic that the same editor makes uncivil comments about the same editors behind their backs. Note that his cherry picking an admin to look at the request,[2] an admin who acted in his favor last time, and was overturned by a wide consensus shows Piotrus' primary motivation is to have an opponent blocked rather than solve a problem whatever it is
- In this case Piotrus, when he fails to provide reliable sources is trying to push civility questions again. I'm disgusted by this, as it seems another attempt to shut my mouth and keyboard. This suggestion to "help me" just proves the attempt. I do wonder if anyone is monitoring irc just now and the words the certain user is putting on my reputation?
- If he has a problem with my statement, he did not bother to express himself and ask me for clarification but goes directly here. This is itself suspicious. His having no courtesy to inform me about this thread (I found about it by accident) is the best proof that his intention is not to resolve the problem but achieve sanctions of his content opponent. This is what he does constantly.--Lokyz (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comparing this thread to an earlier one, I wonder if eyebrows will be raised here also, as Lokyz was not notified on his talk about again being made subject to an AE thread? Piotrus has a history of filing requests here, which might be considered block shopping or fishing for blocks, too. He took early advantage of the Digwuren list by getting Dr. Dan and Matthead listed while managing to get himself removed from it.-- Matthead Discuß 01:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- I see no apologies above, but since this thread started, Lokyz insinuated that I commit copyvios in a completely unrelated discussion. PS. I've asked Lokyz to be civil in the past, and I'd expect he is familiar with our civility policies. I don't see why I should ask him to be civil every time he is not, he had plenty of requests, warnings and last changes before. And Matthead, your surprise involvement in this discussion is indeed a perfect illustration of the pattern detected by the working group on edit wars I linked above: "Tag team members may also be identified with tactics such as... [they] appear at other unrelated articles where the targeted editor may be working (what brought you here, Matt?)... members immediate attack the credibility of the admin... defend each other against admin actions... continue to forum shop, challenging each of the admin's future actions... tag teamers may also make unfounded charges and uncivil comments... any negative reaction by the target is then picked up and amplified in further attacks". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Martinphi editing restriction violations?
In this edit, Martinphi removes a reliable source by an extremely respected scientist (Sean M. Carroll) that was added by me [3]. I believe that this is a violation of the restrictions imposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. I will admit, I had forgotten about this rule, but was reminded it a few days ago [4] [5]. Therefore I will not revert Martinphi, but should there be some enforcement measure here?
ScienceApologist (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- No action is required here. I strongly suggest not running to this message board for every trivial disagreement. Jehochman Talk 18:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources — Rlevse • Talk • 19:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- I removed it per self-published sources, as Rlevse says, especially as the scientist has not published on the subject in a respected journal, so far as I know. I did forget that Vassyana asked me to post on the talk page when removing bad sources, but I've corrected that now. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- A self-published source is a valid source for the opinions of an individual who is respected in the relevant field. There is no reasonable doubt that Carroll thinks this, the only question is whether Carroll's opinion is valid and carries authority (WP:UNDUE) or whether the exclusion is designed primarily to weaken a statement of what after all constitutes the mainstream view. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- I removed it per self-published sources, as Rlevse says, especially as the scientist has not published on the subject in a respected journal, so far as I know. I did forget that Vassyana asked me to post on the talk page when removing bad sources, but I've corrected that now. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Blogs are unvetted opinion not unlike talk pages in Wikipedia. If the author has authority in the subject, then he or she should have stated that view in university or organization journals. Tom Butler (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, without checking this particular edit, this is wrong. An expert in the field may be unable to publish in "reputable" journals, because of lack of interest in the subject. If the blog clearly is his, the relevant question is, is Caroll a recognized expert? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Carrol, according to his Wikipedia article is a theoretical cosmologist specializing in dark energy and general relativity. Does that makes him an expert in the field of parapsychology (the subject of the article in question) ? Mmmm.... this is not an easy call. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'd lean against inclusion, even though Carrol is almost certainly right. Sorry, scientists, but his expertise in parapsychology seems unsupported. Whether MartinΦ has violated this condition is difficult. As I oppose Martin on most of his content choices, can be declare this rejected? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think he's simply advocating in the tradition of John Archibald Wheeler. Anything wrong with that? I mean, it's not too hard to become an expert in pseudoscience demarcation. I think most scientists have the credentials to do so (with apologies to Brian Josephson). ScienceApologist (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'd lean against inclusion, even though Carrol is almost certainly right. Sorry, scientists, but his expertise in parapsychology seems unsupported. Whether MartinΦ has violated this condition is difficult. As I oppose Martin on most of his content choices, can be declare this rejected? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Carrol, according to his Wikipedia article is a theoretical cosmologist specializing in dark energy and general relativity. Does that makes him an expert in the field of parapsychology (the subject of the article in question) ? Mmmm.... this is not an easy call. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, without checking this particular edit, this is wrong. An expert in the field may be unable to publish in "reputable" journals, because of lack of interest in the subject. If the blog clearly is his, the relevant question is, is Caroll a recognized expert? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- First, I would strongly remind both Martinphi and ScienceApologist that they should avoid entaglement with each other. That said, this is the resurfacing of a previous dispute over that very source. I strongly recommend that Martinphi vigorously avoid pricking old wounds and stirring bad blood. I don't really care who's "right" or "wrong", as I've said to people on both sides in the past. If you're doing something you know will be interpreted as personal targeting, is likely to raise temperatures significantly and/or will result in edit wars (or other disruption), don't do it. I don't know about others, but I am going to be thin on good faith in this regard, as everyone involved knows damn well what will set off those alarm bells. If I can see how an action would be disruptive in that fashion, someone who's even more intimately familiar with the situation and personalities involved should absolutely know the same. Martinphi should also communicate with AGK, if he has not already done so by email, regarding AGK's reasonable and polite request that he refrain from reverting ScienceApologist as a two-way street.[6] Vassyana (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)