Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:38, 12 January 2009

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

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

Edit this section for new requests

User:Martinphi

On User talk:Martinphi/interviews, Martinphi is attempting to editwar to make sure that people viewing the page are able to find Scienceapologist's real name. Martinphi is under various restrictions, including an Arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist, and subsequent agreements sorted out on various boards extending this and trying to keep the two of them apart. Notably Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi places even stronger restrictions on Martin as regards Scienceapologist.

WP:OUTING calls for the blocking of any user attempting to out another user. Martinphi is aware of what he is doing, he participated in a discussion about it here.

I have asked for the page Martin is using to out Scienceapologist to be speedy deleted - it is a copy of interviews archived elsewhere.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On it. Will post on ANI shortly--Tznkai (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Forsena

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Forsena is banned for 1 week from editing articles, including talk pages, that relate to the Balkans. PhilKnight (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. User:Forsena appears to have violated User_talk:Forsena#Notice_of_editing_restrictions in that he called another editor vandal and extremist [[1]] Gerardw (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's probably worth noting the editor he is commenting about gave a generic level 4 warning before giving a level 4 NPOV warning. That is, the editor in question gave a generic level 4 warning, after specific levels 1, 2 & 3 warnings had been given, that used the word 'vandalize'. However that certainly doesn't justify this comment which is way over the top. I'm inclined to give a 1 week topic ban from articles related to the Balkans. PhilKnight (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am unimpressed by the warning removals, which are probably among the most dysfunctional of responses. Support a week long ban on all articles related to the Balkans and all articles beginning with the letter "A." I'll pick an additional letter each time there is a violation.

Not sure if I'm joking about that either.--Tznkai (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2009 (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:Poeticbent

Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Eastern European disputes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

As a result of this case Poeticbent was subjected to this remedy:

Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary

This remedy was supposed to prevent repetition of the violations stated in this FoF Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Poeticbent, namely Poeticbent has treated Wikipedia as a battleground.

So far this remedy was not enforced and as a result we have: WP:BATTLE, WP:AGF, not to mention grave MOS violations: Is that an invitation to the usual POVed revert war? It must be... and personal attacks like this [2].

Enforcement of this remedy is urgently required so that content dispute resolution based on dialogue and rational arguments would be possible. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the rant in the template, as that's clearly not on, but otherwise this isn't at emergency level. Is Durova mentoring Poeticbent? If so then please forward all future complaints to her. Moreschi (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Durova is an official mentor, when indeed we can consider this issue closed. Could anyone confirm this? M0RD00R (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem here, other then MORDOOR trying to use the ArbCom remedy, twisting its intent, in order to prevent his opponent from being able to revert him. I'd like to advise MORDOOR not to revert war.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Piotrus. Could you mind taking a look at what I've been asking here? All I've asked is that mentor would be assigned to Poeticbent. It is no fancy of mine, it is an official ArbCom decision which for unknown reasons is not implemented yet. When Durova, showed signs of interest in this case, I have clearly stated that, I consider this matter closed, and from now on I will address all my concerns to her. If you would think that my interaction with Durova would "prevent my opponent from being able to revert me", well you have a right to your opinion. Anyway this thread went straight to Drama Alley. Boooooooring.

P.S. What should I do with Poeticbent's evidence, should I respond to that, or what? I think it speaks for itself better, especially all this " this was removed because it painted Poles in a positive light", that was reverted " because is spoke of food shortages" stuff, anyway if anyone will be interested, surely I can present a brief deconstruction of the events that happened lately, but still I think that my position is explained on relevant talk pages, if that's not enough, let's go by WP:IAR and start content dispute here. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Poeticbent

Could someone please point out to the user who filed this report without notifying me about it, that frivolous use of WP:AN/AE noticeboard for the purpose of trying to gain an upper hand in an ill-fated edit war, is unacceptable? Beginning January 2nd, User:M0RD00R with User:Malik Shabazz have removed every single one of my many impartial contributions to articles (including all scholarly references linked to Google Books), in order to foster their own highly inflammatory political agenda based on ethnic divisiveness. – Understandably, my stress level has gone through the roof, because no Wikipedian can do anything of value in such toxic environment.

Examples of repeat removal of book references, in order to prove a POV

The stalking goes on.... Here's another article I contributed to recently

Please note, most of my contributions (restored by 2 different users) were repeatedly reverted by M0RD00R and Malik Shabazz with false edit summaries under WP:SYNTH while in fact, the conclusions drawn in quoted books (written by different scholars) are commonly accepted as facts by the scientific community.
P.S.: Keep in mind also that the ArbCom case, mentioned above, is being used by M0RD00R exclusively for the purpose of discrediting my most recent contributions. Although M0RD00R was not found at fault by the ArbCom, he's bound by the decisions reached at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes because he is an involved party along with Malik Shabazz. Therefore, I suggest that both M0RD00R and Malik Shabazz be presented with some sort of preventive measures for their blanket wheel-warring against 3 Polish Wikipedians including myself, at: Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946 and at Kraków pogrom. --Poeticbent talk 19:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

In just one week, between January 2nd and January 9, 2009, my laborious and scholarly contributions to Wikipedia requiring prolonged book research have been reverted by M0RD00R eight times and by Malik Shabazz four times… only two weeks after the ArbCom case regarding EE disputes was amended. Apparently, neither of them had learned anything from the three-month-long ArbCom proceedings—which is not surprising—because they did not participate in our discussions at all. It should be noted though that no 3RR rules were broken in their most recent revert wars. An illusion of validity of their actions was being maintained with edit summaries quoting various policy guidelines, however, under close inspection none of them were applicable. Personally, I would not have considered filing a report here at WP:AN. –All I did was to make a symbolic gesture of placing a tag with personalized message atop the article expressing my sense of injustice. I knew that that tag would not stay there for long since everything I did was gone within hours, but that was not what I intended.... Everything I did before was reverted, so naturally also the tag would have been gone in no time. Please consider enforcement of Arbitration Committee decisions reached at Eastern European disputes in the face of their clear violations by both M0RD00R and Malik Shabazz.
--Poeticbent talk 18:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum. Meanwhile, as of this point in time and without my involvement whatsoever, the revert war over the article Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946 goes on, with Malik Shabazz at the centre stage, reverting all other editors' contributions including Piotrus. See: article history. --Poeticbent talk 22:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is all dandy and fine Poeticbent if not one thing. This board is not for discussing content disputes, especially when Your concerns are addressed long time ago at relevant talk page [3], the same talk page you didn't bother to contribute a single time so far despite being urged by uninvolved editors to do so [4]. But now as Durova is showing signs of interest in this case, I do hope that dialogue will be much smoother from now on. Apparently I have failed to express basic WP policies like WP:SYNTH clearly enough - I thought it was entry level knowledge that if you can reference fact X, and you can reference fact Y, it does not mean that by referencing those two separate facts, you've got referenced complex entity XY. Because in order to prove that XY (not just separate X, and separate Y) indeed exists, you need to provide reference stating "X has a relation to Y, and they go together". Why do we need to go through this every single time, time and time again? It is so freaking simple I thought. But well. Where I have failed, maybe Durova, or any other mentor, that ArbCom decided must be assigned to you, will have more luck. So take care, and see You at Durova's talk page as been advised by Moreschi. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One short literary deconstruction of one short drama

This is a quick response to this Addenum by Poeticbent [5]. So I ask - Am I the only one missing something? What revert war? Let's cut on the drama OK? Let's look at what happened step by step. Piotrus makes one bad call arbitrarily changing the victims numbers in the lead section without explaining why from 1000-2000 to 1000-1500. Why it is bad call? It is obvious, the lead should summarize the article, and in the article such numbers are given: Cichopek "more than - 1000", Milyakova "1500-1800", and now the best part, Piotrowski "1500-2000", Yes, it is the same Piotrowski, who is used by certain group of editors in every single article on Polish-Jewish relations, same Piotrowski who's "Poland's Holocaust" Piotrus usually cites in almost every single article concerning controversies of the history of the Jews in Poland. It is obvious to me at least that previous summary - 1000-2000 was mainstream, neutral and objective. Piotrus decided to change it? Good it is his right. It would have been nice from him to explain his motives, but he has chosen not to, it is also his right. Next edit - Malik pointed to obvious weakness of Piotrus edit by inserting reference and explaining his edit in edit summary [6]. Now where do you see a revert war here? Just normal content development, business as usual. Now interesting part begins. Anon from Warsaw jumps in reverts Malik, removes reference inserted by him, without no edit summary whatsoever [7]. And that is pure revert warring. Malik was absolutely right to revert this disruptive edit, and does it explaining his motives in edit summary again. If any of admins watching this board, have any problems with this edit [8], they are free to revert it, and they surely will do it, if they will find Malik's edit totally inapropriate, but I don't think that there will be one. There's no edit warring in this case whatsoever, so please let's make a cut on the drama department. Enough with the drama already. Cheers. P.S. all this has nothing to do with this board, let's start using relevant talk pages for content disputes, drama classes etc. For crying out loud. M0RD00R (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mordoor, please leave your personal opinion of Piotrowski to yourself. And please, his name is Piotrowski, not Piotrkowski. At least learn this. Tymek (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One may wonder if such comments about an estabilished scholar don't fall under WP:BLP...? After all, Greg was banned after a series of strongly worded opinions about some other scholars... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Discussion

Is anyone other than Poeticbent and M0RD00R actually reading this thread? It is very much to long didn't read for me, and its quickly approaching "block both for a week" status.--Tznkai (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking is boring. How about giving me a mentor and not for a week, how about a month? And not just a mentor, a good ol' skool bad-ass mentor with no bullshit approach. A mentor to whom I will have to explain every single edit I make if it is happened to be found dubious, and if I due to make any revert, I will need to report to him beforehand, so he could evaluate if it is justified? Sounds better than block to me. Anyway if is impossible to get a mentor by ArbCom decision, can at least a man get one out of his own free will.M0RD00R (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose blocking Poeticbent who is a constructive editor and author of over 50 DYKs and several GAs. If he is harassed by certain editors, perhaps because he made a mistake of revealing his real name, should make the solution quite clear. That said, I do think that mentorship for both editors - neither of whom is known for being overly disruptive on their regular days - is highly recommended. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth's Poeticbent's real name has to do with this lame drama above? How does his real names explain WP:POINTish article defacements with clearly inappropriate templates like this [9],[10], what on Earth real name has to do with WP:SYN issues, that were pointed not just by M0RD00R and his "tag team members" but by uninvolved editors as well [11]. BTW if real name is your concern, how about Malik's name that is constantly being dragged by Poeticbent [12]. Absolutely vile personal attacks by Poetic were ignored by ArbCom [13], but now I frankly have had it with all this ["His tag-team members include Jayjg routinely abusing his admin powers for example, by reverting content opponents using Twinkle; and of course, M0RD00R, account created exclusively for the purpose of political smear campaigns", M0RD00R at the center stage with his political tag-team members, M0RD00R and his tag-team member Malik Shabazz crap. I am not a part of Jayjg's tag team, I'm not a part of Malik's tag team, I have never met those people, I have never e-mailed them, I have never asked them for any favours, I don't even recall having any person-to-person conversation with them be it wiki, off-wiki, IRC or whatever. Regarding mentorship - Poeticbent's mentorship is not " highly recommended" as you put it. It is an official ArbCom remedy that, has not been implemented yet. Just a quick reminder:

Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.

Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, I have a feeling that you are a part of a Malik-Jayjg tag team, no matter if you have talked personally to them, or not. Tymek (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ombudsman and tendentious editing against consensus

Ombudsman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Ombudsman was placed on permanent probation [14] for agenda-driven editing of medical-related articles. There was a prolonged discussion of the Cure Autism Now article that resulted in a decision to merge and redirect. Ombudsman tried to act against consensus and undo this redirect several times during this period, but seem to let it go. Today, he started up again, undoing the redirect [15] [16] and de-archiving the talk page to make new remarks on old threads[17]. Suggest a topic ban and/or a block to remedy the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was contacted regarding this situation. I declined to take administrative action given prior content disagreements with Ombudsman and suggested to Beeblebrox that he bring the case here. That said, I completely support a page ban in this instance. Ombudsman's editing has consistently been tendentious and agenda-driven since the ArbCom finding, but he generally hops around from page to page and edits infrequently enough that pursuing individual page bans is generally more trouble than it's worth. In this case, Ombudsman is repeatedly undoing a merge ([18], [19], [20], [21], [22]) which had a broad talkpage consensus. Check the typical edit summary here. This is the sort of thing that the probation was designed to prevent. MastCell ^Talk 06:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of best practice, please notify a user when they've been brought up on any administrator's noticeboard. (Notification done). I'm reviewing the complaint now.--Tznkai (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - I probably should've done, but for some reason I feel unwelcome at User Talk:Ombudsman ([23], [24], [[25], [26]). MastCell ^Talk 07:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You or Beeblebrox, or anyone else - not a huge deal.--Tznkai (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, Beeblebrox was not merely leveraging the questionable behavior of a former incarnation of the ArbCom to divert attention from collaborative production of encyclopedic content. It brings into question the assumption of Beeblebrox's good faith, when he heads straight over here crather than discussing the matter on the CAN article talk page, since he has gone beyond merely diverting attention from editing by lunging provocatively into the realm of procedural meddling. In the first place, the previous ArbCom incarnation (several iterations removed) had absolutely no business taking the dubious case of a newbie. The newbie apparently wanted to safeguard his extremely pov evisceration of the biological psychiatry article. Since absolutely no effort was made to resolve the npov 'dispute', the former ArbCom was acting against community consensus by accepting a case that lacked even a hint of discussion, just the newbie's unprovoked -- and thus surprising and quite chilling -- threat of seeking ArbCom intervention. The newbie apparently was overly impressed by involved National Health Service editors, who were attempting to browbeat another editor over an NPOV tag, which the NHS editors provocatively, repeatedly, and quite in error removed. The ArbCom did admit that the tag was appropriate. Beeblebrox's redirecting of the CAN article -- within a mere eight minutes -- indicates little or no attention was given to the renewed attention to CAN's historical significance brought about by media focus upon CAN's sponsorship of the premiere of Joey Travolta's Normal People Scare Me; Beeblebrox's reliance upon the questionable and abusive behavior of a long since passed ArbCom incarnation is reminiscent of the newbie's reliance upon pov-pushing by NHS editors with obvious conflict of interest issues. The attempt here on this page to leverage a previous ArbCom's abuse of both discretion and administrative sanctions is quite an over-reaction, one evidently bereft of the notion of taking time to think over the situation. Beeblebrox suggested discussing the redirect, but after an attempt at renewing the discussion was made on the CAN talk page, he removed the discussion via redirect. Sadly, he has now diverted attention away from editing, an all to common Wiki acculturative experience, as well as closing down discussion of edits on the appropriate CAN talk page. Ombudsman (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ombudsman, can you try that again with a little less vitriol, assumption of bad faith, content dispute and a whole lot less tl;dr? Also the edit warring done here is particularly unimpressive. Page is protected for the time being while I sort out this mess.--Tznkai (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far I am seeing an underdeveloped but extent consensus and excessive stubbornness by Ombudsman on this article - any particular reason you couldn't just work on this in your userspace instead of edit warring? Would it be to much to ask for everyone to stick a fork in this and revisit with cooler heads in a week?--Tznkai (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine with me, but I would note that Ombudsman, knowing he was making a change that was likely to be controversial, is the one who should have gone to the talk page before making changes, and that the proper procedure for re-opening archived discussions is to start a new thread with a link to the archive, not to undo the archiving of two month old stale threads and just start adding to them. I don't see the point in splitting this article back off, but if it is to be done it should be discussed at Talk:Autism Speaks, not the inactive talk page of the merged article. The reason I brought this here instead of Ombudsman's talk page should be evident. Whatever he thinks of the ArbCom decision, it exists and has not been rescinded, and this is exactly the type of behavior it was intended to curtail. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BRD would also have been satisfactory in my opinion - but clearly the discussion is lacking - and Ombudsman, the onus is on you to start and continue high quality discussion when your "bold" edit reverted - in this case the Autism Speaks page would have been a much better place for it, and even if that wasn't an issue this comment here doesn't cut it. Wikipedia works by convincing others you're right.--Tznkai (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved admin I saw a comment about this on MastCell's talkpage and looked into the history a little. Both Ombudsman and Beeblebrox were edit warring, but Ombudsman was doing this in defiance of a clear talk-page consensus and in breach of his probation on tendentious editing of medical articles. Unless anybody here objects I will ban him from this article and talk page (now a redirect), and state that any further edit warring on this or other medical articles will bring a lengthy block for disruption. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do object - I want Ombudsman to have at least one more opportunity to respond before we continue discussing sanctions.--Tznkai (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I have to agree with Tim here; the reason folks end up on this page is because they've been given all the warnings and chances in the world. This isn't the forum for handing out additional chances, its for determining whether or not restrictions were broken and if so, giving the appropriate sanction. Clearly, this was a violation of Ombudsman's restrictions - there's no doubt he's aware that this behavior is unacceptable, so further coddling isn't particularly helpful. Shell ^babelfish 17:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See below.--Tznkai (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I expect a clear statement that he will abide by his ArbCom restrictions and avoid edit-warring, otherwise there is little possibility of avoiding similar situations in the future. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty much what I was looking for myself - or perhaps an argument that could change my mind. Either way, I think any user deserves the chance to be off wiki for a few days and have a chance to make some sort of statement before sanctions are leveled. The immediate problem has been stopped, so I think patience is a virtue here.--Tznkai (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with this in principle, but please consider that Ombudsman's MO has been to disrupt an article for a little while, then drop out of sight for a few days or weeks and pop up and disrupt another article. It's been an effective way of circumventing his probation, in some senses. It doesn't really bother me - I stopped taking him seriously a long time ago, and I generally don't bother reporting his various breaches of probation since it's easier to ignore him. But I don't think it's fair to continually expose innocent users (in this case, User:Beeblebrox) to Ombudsman's abusive editing, when the ArbCom remedy was meant to curtail it. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if he doesn't give a satisfactory response on this page within a few days I'll go ahead regardless. From your comment, would you recommend a broader remedy than a ban from a single article - such as a permanent 1RR restriction? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really a neutral party here, since I've had numerous previous content disagreements with Ombudsman, and I consider that his editing long ago passed the point of being a major net negative to Wikipedia. Simply cleaning up the huge walled garden of abusive POV forks he created on autism and vaccines required an extensive time/effort commitment from User:Eubulides. That said, I think a broad topic ban from articles relating to vaccines and autism would be most appropriate. I would suggest that he be restricted to talk pages in those areas, and subject to further sanctions if he abuses that leeway. I know this sounds relatively harsh, but the track record here more than justifies it. If his editing were slightly more concentrated in time, I think he'd long ago have been banned. Perhaps relevant is the fact that he was banned by Jimbo Wales at one point; he was unbanned because Miltopia (talk · contribs) vouched for him (!) and out of a "desire to show forgiveness where possible". That's my 2 cents, again as an explicitly involved editor. MastCell ^Talk 20:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frequency of autism and looking at this editor's previous actions I'm now leaning towards an indefinite block. This editor has no ability to work constructively with other editors, no understanding of the requirements of the NPOV policy and has had a second chance and blew it. Why waste more of everybody's time? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he can edit constructively in other areas. I'm imposing a topic ban on all pages relating to vaccinations and autism, broadly speaking. In addition to a 3 week long block.

God, I'm getting old. Even a few months ago I would have permabanned this guy...ah well. It gives him a chance to edit in areas where WP:TIGERS won't get in the way. If he doesn't take it we can just ban him. Moreschi (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article and talk page ban then? And the 3 week block is a bit over the top if you're going to topic ban him.--Tznkai (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both article and talk page. I'm fed up with talkpage flamers who waste everybody's time with pointless wittering: that detracts from the encyclopedia indirectly just as much as edit-warring does directly. I suppose the block is not strictly necessary, but you never can be too harsh with people like this, otherwise they never get the message that we're not bullshitting and this really is their last chance. Moreschi (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, but since I'm getting both old and cynical, I'll be surprised if this is the last we hear from him. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally it won't be, but the next step is obvious. Moreschi (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I've received now two e-mails from Ombudsman, which were a little insulting towards me, and a long rant about autism, censorship, authority studies, and the great MastCell/ArbCom/Jimbo cabal. I pushed for Ombudsman to be heard before sanctions, and while that didn't happen, I'm still rather unimpressed that this sort of thing is the only communication that Ombudsman will give. Considering the nature of the e-mail (which I will share with Ombudsman's permission), I'm recommending an indefinite topic ban on any medical article that MastCell has ever edited, both because of the directly preventive nature (Ombusdman has shown his tendency to be disruptive when MastCell is within metaphorical sight) and the indirectly poetic nature of the ban. Maybe now, Ombudsman and others will learn: long rants about how editors are to blame for all your faults will do nothing but bring holy hell on your own head.--Tznkai (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abtract v Alastair again

Abtract (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Alastair Haines arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

I note that Abtract adopts an appropriate method here in a number of significant ways:

he uses the talk page before editing
he actually attempts to make a case
he actually cites a source.

All these three basics are unprecedented in the editing of Abtract (and Ilkali) in their interactions with Alastair, and are a refreshing change for the better. Unfortunately, it will be noted that the edit still includes a personal attack on Alastair, and ignores answers already provided by Alastair—uncivil characteristics of the vast majority of all posts by Abtract (and Ilkali) over a period of close to nine months. Additionally, ArbCom have asked Abtract to edit anywhere he likes at Wikipedia, just not in places that interact with Alastair. Abtract's edit above breaches the standing arrangement. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And some more. There's no rush to deal with this, soon I'll just start reverting as required. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background: Alastair's first (of 344) edits (and 64 talk page posts) at this article was at 19:04, 25 October 2007.

Abtract's first (of 11) edits (and 15 talk page posts) at this article appears at 05:07, 23 November 2008. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair, you hadn't edited the article since the 18th - both you and Abtract had been involved in editing the article before that. This doesn't seem at all like the earlier problems, especially given Abtract's use of the talk page. You're also really reaching to call that a personal attack or claim that its any kind of interaction with you. Since you're also under restriction from the same case not to make assumptions of bad faith, you're skirting dangerously close to a block of your own. Go edit productively; stop worrying so much about Abtract. Shell ^babelfish 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a pretty obvious violation of Abtract's restrictions. Looie496 (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's over the line. Since the last two week long blocks don't appear to have made the point, I'm going to make this block two weeks in length. Shell ^babelfish 02:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both Looie and Shell for looking into this, and ArbCom for providing a simple system to deal with things.

You're quite right too Shell, actually, other than interacting with Abtract, I've hardly touched that article for a year. I don't even maintain it much because there are quite a lot of others who watch the page and revert obvious vandalism.

However, what is less obvious to casual passers by is that I'm very deliberate in my contributions at Wiki. I keep them mainly to supporting the work of friends, new additions, or maintenance where there is steady erosion (rather than obvious vandalism), for predictable emotional rather than source-driven reasons.

The last is the kind of work that Abtract, Ilkali and others have been seeking to undermine by lobbying to poison the well. Unless one is willing to become familiar enough with the content issues, some of which are abstract, and occasionally counter-intuitive, all that it looks like is a petty squabble or personality clash. Indeed, that is all comes down to in regard to objections raised to screen the erosive edits that still continue.

There are still several issues associated with this case needing attention. The discussion and actions above are an appreciated donation of time that should hopefully play a part in resolving that unfinished business, when I have time myself to give it priority again. Once again, thanks. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need some other opinions - Abtract appears to be indicating that he has no intention of abiding by the ArbCom restrictions that prohibit him from any contact with Alastair. [27] At this point, there doesn't appear to be much left but to indef block Abtract's account until such time as he's willing to play ball. Any thoughts? Shell ^babelfish 19:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like that idea, but I do appreciate others being involved in this. Abtract normally makes quality contributions. I think keeping things low key is good, but I've never looked into the Collectonian thing. I'd rather Abtract was approached by calm, neutral people using reason (and some good humour) than by demonstrations of "force". But such things are time consuming. I'll stay out of the Abtract question, I'll have other matters to raise later. Best regards, Alastair Haines (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, if Abtract is intent on playing the martyr, there is nothing we can do to stop him. The ball is firmly within his court - there is no administration intervention that will fix this situation. He will either decide to attempt something productive, or he can continue to violate restrictions, leaving administrators with the unpleasant choices of blocking him, or essentially throwing out the relevant arbitration. There is nothing from Abtract's behavior that leads me to believe that any sort of reasonable compromise is available - all compromises require Abtract to accept his own agency, fault, and the validity of the authority (or at least viewpoint) of the larger community funneled through ArbCom and editors acting as administrators. I have no reason to believe that Abtract is worth the effort of bending and breaking the community will around to keep - rest assured I think no one deserves that. So, in summary: we're just going to keep blocking him unless someone thinks of a better idea or otherwise "gets through" to him.--Tznkai (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC) (I used the male pronoun out of habit - feel free to correct if needed)[reply]

Resolved

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 [[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|talk]]) 06:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
+:On it. Will post on ANI shortly--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 15:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 === User Forsena ===