Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Jo0doe

Appeal declined
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user Jo0doe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction being appealed Arbitration enforcement: WP:DIGWUREN: 1 year block and concurrent indef. block [1] Administrator imposing the sanction Looie496 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator [2] T. Canens (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Statement by Jo0doe I’ve not involved into editing of the “all pages relating to Holodomor, broadly construed since 2008”- thus I can not physically violate the WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions imposed over my account in 2008 [3]. I also strictly followed suggested policy - "to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability - [4] - [5] [6] - [7] – Non-English source text – [8] intended for graduated in history scholars cannot be judged by the determination based on Google translation [9] . Exact citations given here [10] – please clarify does text cited contradict with [11] - given at WP:AE [12] as falsified/mistranslated example. I hope admin which review my request also can easily read typed in 1941 -1942 texts [13] [14] (which provide similar facts as in text in question]–to fairly judge my request. If there no admin which able read Ukrainian and got a suggested by book scholar degree – I can recommend to check available English scholar works on topic –[15] - pages 292, 349-55 [16] page 59 [17] page 8 [18] which suggest similar to facts added [19] which mentioned at WP:AE as an example of the as falsified/mistranslated text. I kindly ask to clarify the sanction applied – if I actually falsify/misrepresent the facts (i.e. OUN Ukrainian militia actually does not took part in round-ups of Jews for mass executions and not participate in it, not escorted Jews to their forced labor sites ... etc,) (as added to WP and suggested by sources mentioned above) – I agreed with sanction applied – If the sources support the texts added – please withdraw the sanctions applied. If there were any other instances of the “falsified/mistranslated examples” which can be also arisen and need to be clarified with sources– I can provide on request a copies of books pages (if there no online book available) and also primary sources (like [20]or [21] ThanksJo0doe (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Further statement Initially [22] There was a consensus about “misrepresenting sources” “that others describe as falsifying the sources” [23] [24] Now [25] it was a consensus about “lacking the necessary English language communication skills” [26][27][28] – So the reason of 1 year block extended indefinite under WP:DIGWURREN remains unexplained - and I kindly ask to clarify – does the request [29] was filled /and block applied because of “lacking the necessary English language” or because diffs [30] [31] [32] were judged “misrepresenting sources” and “that others describe as falsifying the sources” (i.e. English scholar texts mentioned above and the text In late June and July 1941 OUN militias and “Sich” organizations went on a rampage in Galicia, Northern Bukovina, and Volhynia, killing Jews primarily, but also some Poles and communists. Sometimes these militias did not do the killing themselves, but rounded up the victims for Germans and Romanians to execute by firing squad. [33] is falsifying ? In other words - the someone from the participants depicted at p.307 [34] were engaged in“misrepresenting sources” “that others describe as falsifying the sources”. Clarification for the block reason would nice.Jo0doe (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Moved from user talk. T. Canens (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Statement by Looie496 For reference, the original AE action is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive71#Jo0doe. This appeal does not seem to me to address the issues that led to the block, which are a combination of poor English skills and tendentious editing based on interpretations of Ukrainian sources that other Ukrainian speakers say are incorrect. Looie496 (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Statement by --Paweł5586 (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I dont find any controversial and wrong interpretated edits made by Jo0doe. I find many this facts in books which I can provide. --Paweł5586 (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Jo0doe Note: Moved from User talk:Jo0doe, see [35]. Malformed request fixed. Looie496 notified. T. Canens (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC) That he was permanently banned from the .Ru Wiki (his native language) and is in the same trouble here, I don't think a language barrier alone can explain the disruptions that have occurred that lead to his current block.--Львівське (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Jo0doe This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. This appeal is self defeating. The user has been blocked for a number of reasons, which include lacking the necessary English language communication skills to edit in this topic area, and this appeal is astonishingly unclear. For example, the first sentence is hard to fathom, yes I understand that he was banned from articles relating to Holodomor, but is he seriously suggesting he was unaware of the existence of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions? The second sentence is supported by 4 diffs, none of which inspire confidence, especially if intended to showcase his best work. The third sentence includes 'intended for graduated in history scholars cannot be judged', before arguing that those of us who don't understand Ukrainian shouldn't attempt to ascertain whether he was misusing sources by using google translate or similar. Anyway, decline appeal on the grounds of lacking the necessary English language communication skills. PhilKnight (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I'm one of the admins who supported the original action here at AE, which is being appealed now. It would be helpful if Jo0doe could provide new information or a very clear explanation of why we misjudged the first time. Since the present appeal is quite baffling, it illustrates the difficulty that others have had in understanding him. I can't support undoing the original action if that's all we have to work with here. EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC) This user appears to be trying to speak English by proxy using Google or some other machine translator. If you are unable to communicate in English you shouldn't be editing the English language Wikipedia. The fact that they cannot see how badly garbled their English is speaks volumes. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been investigating this case for the past two days, including preparing English language translations of the original source material. The case is extremely complex and the investigation so far has taken over on full working day. Unfortunately I was not able to present my statement before this case was closed. I ask that this case not be archived yet. I will later ask that the case be reopened and present a statement. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Brews ohare

User requesting enforcement

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Motions (Motion 6) "Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months."

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. [36] Discussion of Euclidean vs Einsteinian (i.e. relativistic) nature of space (flat or curved). Which is of course intimately related to the character of the speed of light and free space, etc... which has been the locus of the Brewhaha since time immemorial.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

How about the last zillion AE against Brews?

2

+zillions of ANI threads, talk page messages, etc, etc, etc., ad nauseam.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Blocked for the rest of his topic ban, since he cannot abide by it for even a week.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Hopefully this time he'll more than a slap on the fingers as he too often-received. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, and Brews ran out of AGF-juice a long time ago. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• User:EdJohnston, expressed doubts on my talk page on whether there was a violation of the ban, and asked me to withdraw the request. So I'll be a bit more explicit.

  The violation is both a crystal crystal and a blatant. Discussion of the nature of space, and whether it is Euclidean or Einsteinian is not only physics-related, it's directly-related the area where Brews has been most disruptive (speed of light, electromagnetism, relativity topics, and anything related to it). Maybe this isn't immediately clear if you aren't a physicist, but this is equivalent of someone being banned from a topic such as geology editing the article on tectonics. Brews has been testing his ban, violating it left and right, and has wasted countless hours of productive editor's time over the last 16 months or so now. He has been warned plenty of times. Hell, he's been banned not even two weeks ago for this stuff, and he still keeps at it.

  So no, I will not withdraw the request. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[37]

Discussion concerning Brews ohare

Statement by Brews ohare

I regret any appearance of violating the ban against physics-related topics. It was my intention simply to transfer a geometry-related discussion rejected at Pythagorean theorem because it pertained to Euclidean geometry in general, not specifically to Pythagoras' theorem, and so properly should be brought up in Euclidean geometry instead.

The offending text I transferred to Euclidean geometry reads:

"Euclid's proofs depend upon assumptions perhaps not obvious in Euclid's fundamental axioms, in particular that certain movements of figures do not change their geometrical properties such as the lengths of sides and interior angles, the so-called Euclidean motions, which include translations and rotations of figures."

References

1. Richard J. Trudeau (2008). "Euclid's axioms". The Non-Euclidean Revolution. Birkhäuser. pp. 39 'ff. ISBN 0817647821.
2. See, for example: Luciano da Fontoura Costa, Roberto Marcondes Cesar (2001). Shape analysis and classification: theory and practice. CRC Press. p. 314. ISBN 0849334934. and Helmut Pottmann, Johannes Wallner (2010). Computational Line Geometry. Springer. p. 60. ISBN 3642040179. The group of motions underlie the metric notions of geometry. See Félix Klein (2004). Elementary Mathematics from an Advanced Standpoint: Geometry (Reprint of 1939 Macmillan Company ed.). Courier Dover. p. 167. ISBN 0486434818.

These remarks concerning the logical underpinnings of Euclid's geometry are, of course, all geometrical in nature as are all the sources cited. The term "space" in this geometrical context refers to matters such as Euclidean space, non-Euclidean space, vector space, Hilbert space and so forth and while having application to physics, is not itself physics or physics related.

I believe Headbomb was misled into seeing the above insertion of mine as a physics-related violation because a few sentences later in Euclidean geometry a sentence occurs alerting the reader to a later discussion (text not added by myself, but pre-existing);

"As discussed in more detail below, Einstein's theory of relativity significantly modifies this view."

I have no part in raising this point advertising a later discussion about relativity, nor in contributing to it, nor to the later discussion it refers to, in any way.

I hope that my addition to the math article Euclidean geometry will be seen for what it is, a mathematical contribution to a math article, and not a violation of my sanctions. Brews ohare (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Dougweller: It is not correct to say my inserted text refers to Penrose. The sources cited in my text are only those listed above. The Penrose source was cited by the original author to support his immediately preceding remarks that Euclid's axioms implied some characteristics of Euclidean space that are not too obvious from his axioms, but can be taken by implication. These are again mathematical implications of the axioms, not physics. Brews ohare (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Headbomb: To claim that discussion of Euclid's axioms from circa 300 BC is tantamount to a physics discussion of the "speed of light, electromagnetism, relativity topics, and anything related to it" is quite a stretch, and I think it is "immediately clear [even] if you aren't a physicist" that geometry of 300 BC is discussed in my inserted text quoted above without reference to physics of the late 19th and early 20th century. Brews ohare (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to The Wordsmith: I believe you are on the right track. I have proposed previously what I think is the right approach. That is, to remove all sanctions presently imposed upon me and impose instead this requirement:

On a Talk page at any time that patience with me becomes short, the editors actively engaged in the thread can take a vote, and if that vote so indicates, express their formal desire that I desist. If I do not follow that request, a block will be imposed upon me by some uninvolved admin restricting my access to that Talk page.

This restriction would apply to a discussion thread on any Talk page on any topic. Brews ohare (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC) You will notice that this proposal is more severe than the one you suggest. I don't think reverts of main page edits are ordinarily a problem with me; I don't violate the 3RR and usually don't revert much at all. The problem is exhausting the patience of editors on Talk pages. Brews ohare (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that Headbomb, Blackburne, DickLyon and some others have virtually zero patience on any topic that I am involved in, and so my comments where they are involved will be very, very severely restricted by this proposal. Brews ohare (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to EdJohnston: Whatever the ban encompasses, there are boundaries. The boundary between mathematics and physics may appear to you to be blurry, but there is just no doubt that it was not crossed in this instance. Moving the boundary will not prevent Headbomb from raising objections that its new position has been crossed, no matter where the boundary is drawn. Brews ohare (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Beeblebrox: My actions objected to by Headbomb do not warrant drastic action, and IMO his case is entirely unwarranted. The issues raised by Blackburne are separate from Headbomb's case here, and occurred on a different page altogether. If Headbomb's action is to be switched in focus to Blackburne's allegations, I have proposed a remedy and also proposed a voluntary restriction, either of which would solve that problem. You haven't looked at these remedies. There is no need here to crack a walnut with a pile driver. Brews ohare (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary restriction: Assuming that would end this matter, I have no problem accepting a voluntary restriction of one revert per week, per article, on any article in the natural sciences, this agreement to terminate at the expiration of the presently existing sanction against me. I'd accept a block of my access for one week for the affected page for each occurrence of an infraction. Brews ohare (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not put the wonderful "broadly construed" phrase in here because it is that vague term that enables Headbomb and others to bring actions on doubtful grounds, like this one. Brews ohare (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternative voluntary restriction: Assuming that would end this matter, I have no problem accepting an alternative voluntary restriction as follows, this agreement to terminate at the expiration of the presently existing sanction against me:

On any Talk page on any topic, if it arises that patience with me becomes short, the editors actively engaged in the thread can take a vote, and if that vote so indicates, express their formal desire that I desist. If I do not follow that request, a block of one week will be imposed upon me by some uninvolved admin restricting my access to that Talk page.

I believe this is the more effective action. Brews ohare (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I request the clerk to remove DickLyon's remarks from my statement section and place it with DickLyon's own peculiar views. Brews ohare (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have done this myself. Brews ohare (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed acceptance: I have still an hour or so before leaving town. I accept EdJohnston's adoption of my Voluntary restriction, with the proviso that it be clarified what blocking action will be imposed. I'd accept a block of my access for one week for the affected page for each occurrence of an infraction. Brews ohare (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Brews ohare

Dr. Brews continues to be unable to come to terms with how wikipedia works. On non-physics topics like Pythagorean theorem, he repeats his usual style of bloating an article with every "ramification" he can think of, and wastes enormous amounts of time of other editors who attempt to moderate his impact. As I've already said, the problem is not physics. He needs a serious break from wikipedia, and should only be allowed to come back if he shows some sign of hearing the input that he keeps getting. So far, he rejects it all, wastes more time trying to change the rules, appealing all decisions, blogging on Jimmy Wales's talk page, and saying WP is doomed if they don't do it his way. He even takes his physics lobbying off-wiki to direct email; it's tedious. On the other hand, as he states above, he may not have actually violated the terms of his topic ban at this time. Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I find myself in agreement with this statement. Brews may not have violated the ban in this instance, but it seems to me that he is not capable of correcting the underlying problem that led to the ban in the first place regardless of what area he edits in. Unfortunately the extreme verbosity and wiki-lawyering that often accompanies his posts tends to frustrate other users to the point where they get exhausted from talking to him and simply walk away. I'm sure Brews will recall that I have lobbied in the past to have both him and David Tombe banned altogether. I can only imagine how much time and effort would have been saved if I had been successful in persuading the community at that time, now two years or so in the past. However, I am forced to agree that if the line was crossed in this particular instance it seems to have been done without malice or a deliberate intent to circumvent the ban. The wider issues involved are not relevant to that point, but perhaps it is time to re-open that discussion elsewhere... Beeblebrox (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree in general with the two statements above, but disagree that the edit currently under discussion does not violate the topic ban. It could easily have been kept as a edit totally about geometry, but Brewohare brought it into the realm of physics when he moved into the realm of "a physical description of space", which is physics, and not geometry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It is definitely very closely related to physics. - BorisG (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Geometry is a part of Mathematics (including Euclidean motions), not Physics, plain and simple. A part of this geometry article includes one phrase about special relativity, which is obviously a part of Physics. However, Brews did not. modify this phrase if I correctly read the diff. There was no violation of topic ban on his part I believe. Is it somehow related to Physics? Yes, it is, since the math is used in Physics. In the same manner, one could argue that many subjects in Chemistry and Biology are related to Physics. If it falls under the definition of the ban, someone should explain to Brews that he can not edit anything about Mathematics. Biophys (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Last time, it was clear that Brews violated his physics topic ban and I said so here at AE, but this time I'm of the opinion that he did not. One has to consider the proper context in which the edits are made. This time the edit in question fits in his editing of geometry articles as can be distilled from his editing history. Of course, while the letter of the topic ban clearly allows for such edits, that can sometimes be too narrow a way to look at this. One has consider whether Brews was "dancing around the topic ban", and that requires looking at the edit in question in the context of his general editing pattern. If you do that, you see that the edits he made were relevant to the math topic in question; he was not "hiding at a math topic" to violate his physics topic ban (like fighting an old battle about the speed of light on a math talk page or anything like that). Count Iblis (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC) :I believe he has clearly broken his topic ban. His edit discusses space and references The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, written by physicist (albeit mathematical physicist) Roger Penrose, a winner of the Wolf Prize for Physics (jointly with Stephen Hawking). Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, everything in natural sciences is somehow related to Physics. Does it mean he can not edit anything from natural sciences in general? If so, that should be clarified. Biophys (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure this is a violation of his physics ban, but what it is again (i.e. since our last visit here) is a continuation of the behaviour that got him banned from physics. He first reverted another editor's change he disagreed with, in itself a harmless revert in the spirit of BRD. I disagreed with this and reverted it, explained myself on the talk page, and was supported in my reasoning by User:EmilJ, so a consensus against Brews ohare's reversion.

But he refused to accept this. He again reinserted the contested material, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again. He varied the wording and placement, attempting to source it but from sources nothing to do with Pythagoras's theorem, but each time it was the same material which there was clear consensus to remove.

At the same time on the talk page, unhappy with the clear consensus against his changes he continued to argue the point. He introduced no new arguments or relevant sources, attracted one more editor who tried to persuade him to stop, then deciding there wasn't enough drama on the talk page opened an RfC, bringing yet more editors who pushed him to stop his by now disruptive and POV-pushing behaviour. At last he stopped, though only to take his arguments to another article, except in completely the wrong place and out of context as it's already covered in the axioms section, as if he never even read the article before adding to it. How much he has violated his physics ban is unclear, but that he has continued editing in the way that got him banned from physics is without doubt.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

@The_Wordsmith: but few of his edits are reverts. At Pythagorean theorem he has more often reworded, moved content around and located irrelevant sources for material to work around consensus. A revert restriction would not effect this (he would just do it more often), and would have no impact on his behaviour on talk pages and other non-article pages.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It would, because you can revert him. Also, you can archive talk page discussions that Brews has steered too far off topic or which go round in circles. Brews can still revert you, but only once. There is then no way he can dominate any discussions that other editors don't want to engage on. Those discussions can be closed swiftly and editors can move on without Brews being able to restart them. Count Iblis (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Placing Euclid into Physics is a big stretch. Next all forms of measurement will be included, thus keeping Brews from any articles about measuring anything? Nope - this is not Physics, and is not a ban violation as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A topic ban for all of math would not be a good idea, let me explain why. Putting aside my POV on Brews and accepting the criticisms of Brews' editing style by JohnBlackburne, Dicklyon and Beeblebrox, one has to note that the issue is a behavioral problem, not per se related to any particular topic. The less topics are available for Brews to edit, the more likely it is that these problems will arise. Note e.g. that some time ago, Brews had to decline a request to edit some page related to Hilbert spaces because that directly involved physics. Such requests by fellow editors to edit a page based on good previous experience is obviously least likely to give rise to problems. Count Iblis (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

0RR on issues related to his own edits?

I think this is would work better than the current proposal by The Wordsmith. This would actually indirectly implement what Brews is proposing now. To implement Brews proposal would require editors to actually vote on closing of discussions. If instead, we put Brews on 0RR on edits he makes himself, a discussion started by him can be archived by any other editor without Brews being able to revert it. However, if other editors would disagree with the archiving, they can talk about that themselves and decide to leave it closed or re-open it per consensus. So, this is then practically the same as what Brews is proposing, albeit it less formally.

Then Brews is not under 0RR generally. He can edit and revert like anyone else, generally. But if he makes some edit in an article or on a talk page and his edits are reverted, modified, archived, etc. then he isn't allowed to revert such changes (which implies that he is effectively under 1RR on issues not initiated by himself). If he is reverted in "article space", he can discuss that on the talk page of the article. But if a discussion started by him is archived, he can't start a meta discussion about that. Count Iblis (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Dicklyon in reply to Brews

On the contrary, I think we have shown extreme patience (I know several editors have praised me for my patience in dealing with Brews and several other problem editors over the last few years), but the patience has been squandered to where there's not much left for this problem that hasn't gotten better over time in spite of a huge investment of time by the community. If Brews were gone, we wouldn't be losing an editor -- we'd be gaining back several. Dicklyon (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Such sentiments expressed by some editors in the CC area got them topic banned. Casting aspersions is seen as a bad thing by ArbCom and I tend to agree with that, albeit it I think that topic banning experts in climate science as a remedy for that is a bit extreme. Count Iblis (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Brews ohare

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Am I the only one who thinks that someone topic banned from physics should not be editing a paragraph that contains the phrase "theory of relativity", whether or not it is technically within the scope of the ban? T. Canens (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• I too noticed the edit warring by Brews at Pythagorean theorem, as observed by John Blackburne in his comment just above. This leads me to propose a formal narrowing of the sanctions. It is confusing just where the boundary should be drawn between physics and mathematics, but we should not have infinite patience when new complaints involving Brews show up here. I don't think a block of Brews would be of much use unless it is for a long time, so I urge admins to consider a further restriction. The simplest would be to impose a ban from the topic of mathematics. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • My earlier edit was meant to go here, I'm not sure how it managed to get where it is, but I agree with both of the above. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• It is unclear if this is an actual violation, but the edit warring does need to stop. Therefore, I propose the following restriction:
  • Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is restricted to one revert per week on all articles related to natural sciences (broadly construed).

Hopefully this should solve the problem. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Wordsmith that a 1RR/week on all articles related to natural sciences (broadly construed) would be a reasonable way of addressing the problem, short of of a wider topic ban that would include mathematics. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Under what authority do you propose we institute this restriction? I can't quite find anything that quite fits allowing extra restrictions like this one. Courcelles 19:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with you that if the only relevant Arbcom decision is Speed of light, there is nothing that allows admins to impose an extra restriction. All we can do is issue blocks to Brews for violating his ban from the topic of physics. Maybe Brews will agree to a voluntary restriction in lieu of a block. As an alternative, Headbomb (who opened this AE) could apply directly to Arbcom for them to impose the restriction, assuming that Headbomb agrees with this plan. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• The only thing that would work is the general probation under Remedy 3, and that expired three weeks ago. We need to either ask ArbCom for a renewal of the probation, for an 1RR restriction or topic ban straight, or do it by community consensus. Seeing as a motion to extend the probation was rejected by a small margin last time in favor of the topic ban, there may be a good chance that we can get some ArbCom action here. T. Canens (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I feel that the time for half-measures is over. It is clear to me that it does not matter how many areas of WP we topic ban Brews from or how many mild restrictions we place on his reverts, it is his whole approach to Wikipedia that is the problem. ArbCom's ruling moved this problem elsewhere but did not eliminate it. I don't see how anything less than a full site ban can resolve the issue satisfactorily. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Not surprisingly Brews has already responded to this. In a way he has made my point for me by pointing out that there are numerous objections to the way he edits practically everywhere he goes. I have looked at your proposed remedies. Your analogy is false. If the problems caused by you are a mere "walnut" it would no doubt be the world's record walnut and dwarf a watermelon. Lesser restrictions have failed us with this user time and again. The idea that we should have an election every time he opens his mouth is one of the most absurd notions I have ever seen, and the revert restriction would not stop the core problem, which is the addition of massive amounts of irrelevant material and incredibly verbose talk page posts that tire other users out with their long-winded rambling to the point where all but the most stalwart simply give up and find something else to do. However, a site ban is outside the scope of this discussion as it is not authorized ny the ArbCom decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• I recommend we close this request now by accepting Brews' offer above: "Assuming that would end this matter, I have no problem accepting a voluntary restriction of one revert per week, per article, on any article in the natural sciences, this agreement to terminate at the expiration of the presently existing sanction against me." It is understood that this restriction (if accepted by the closer of this AE) is binding on Brews, and may be enforced by blocks. The expiry will be the same as the physics ban, which will be August 22, 2011. Brews left a message on my talk that he is out of town for a while, so I think we need to reach our conclusion without waiting for his further comment. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support the action proposed by EdJohnston in his comment immediately above (and in turn by Brews himself), which is probably the easiest way forward. AGK 20:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Very well. Let's see if this works. T. Canens (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor

Blocked, 24h.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Ed Poor User requesting enforcement -- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Ed Poor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Ed_Poor_placed_on_Probation Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 20:23, 10 November 2010 = Post to talk page of article within Category:Unification Church, in violation of topic ban enacted by admin Kafziel Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 20:31, 28 September 2009 = Warning by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs), "Dangit, Ed, are you POV pushing again? Stop disrupting this place. You really ought to bar yourself from any Unification and/or Moon related articles; if not, eventually it may happen without your consent, humiliating as that may be. Seriously, Ed, you know better." 20:54, 28 September 2009 = Warning by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs), "Ed, I'm trying to give you good advice. You've lost the 'crat bit; you've been de-adminned, you're banned from Intelligent design and all related articles for your previous disruptive POV pushing. If you want to ignore my advice, fine, but don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about. I remind you of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Ed_Poor_placed_on_Probation and remind you that being warned is not a personal attack, no matter how much you fume and sputter that it is." 20:56, 28 September 2009 = Warning by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs), notice and reminder of text of the ArbCom probation: "Ed Poor is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2#Log of blocks and bans." 21:33, 28 September 2009 = Warning by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs), "Ed, I'm not going to play your games. You've been warned; watch your step on Moon and Unification related articles. I will not hesitate to block if you continue to disrupt." 19:37, 10 December 2009 = Notice of topic ban, by Kafziel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), "Per the discussion here, you have been banned from editing any article or talk page related to Category:Unification Church." 09:27, 13 December 2009 = Comment on the topic ban, by Tim Vickers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), "You are a paid member of an organisation edit warring on articles related to the organisation. The problem is both obvious and serious." 16:41, 15 December 2009 = Another comment by Tim Vickers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), "If you wish to appeal this ban, feel free, but your edit history on these articles reads very poorly in light of your strong COI." Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Block, due to violation of topic ban. Block to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Thank you for your time. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notice given = 20:59, 10 November 2010. -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Discussion concerning Ed Poor Statement by Ed Poor Comments by others about the request concerning Ed Poor Result concerning Ed Poor This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Blocked for 24 hours. Like I said in my block note, to acknowledge a ban and then violate it three minutes later is unacceptable. Courcelles 21:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Agreed, and thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Concur with Courcelles, and now closing this thread as resolved. AGK 20:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas

No action taken.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Viriditas User requesting enforcement Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 12:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Climate change: discretionary sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [38][39] Violation of 1RR on Climatic Research Unit email controversy, which now falls under the discretionary sanctions regime. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Not applicable Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Warning Additional comments by editor filing complaint Violation of 1rr restriction on Climatic Research Unit email controversy while reverting what is likely a Scibaby sock (but not yet proven). Pretty marginal violation if at all, but I'll leave that for another set of eyes to decide. I have simultaneously filed an SPI request at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [40] Discussion concerning Viriditas Statement by Viriditas Comments by others about the request concerning Viriditas If it's Scibaby, aren't reverts of banned users exempt? Ravensfire (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Indeed. However, I think there is a question of whether one should be wholly exempt from 1RR when reverting an editor that has not yet been confirmed as a banned user (in fact, the purported sock puppet at the time of this writing is still not even duck blocked) and wanted some more experienced eyes to examine this. Pretty much any new editor to the CC articles is presumed to be a sock by default, whereas I am suggesting it might be helpful to confirm that fact before presuming one has the right to revert their edits. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 15:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC) We used to have a section at the CC probation board where editors could list their suspicions. All editors were then free to revert the suspected sock edits. I found that useful - it requires explicit documentation, without going through the hassle of filing a separate SPI for each suspected sock. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC) According to the long term abuse page on scibaby, xe can also be reported to WP:AIV (which usually has lightning fast responses). I'm not sure anyone does that though..... Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 15:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC) I think Ravensfire is correct here. We also neeed to keep in mind that Scibaby is also watching this page and will exploit the fact that he can get people blocked. Now, we can avoid violating 1RR but that would require restarting the climate change task force page (which was paralized due to disputes in the CC area). One can simply revert once and then post a notification of the likely Scibaby edit on that task force page. Count Iblis (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC) One can, if one is aware of the 1RR violation. In this case, the edits in question are 22or so hours apart, so this may be a simple oversight (even if it is not, the general point stands). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Is it possible to get a couple of CU's to volunteer to handle this major sock distrupter? I think if a couple would volunteer to monitor or be pinged to know that there is a questionable editor possibly socking that it would make it take less time than it does filing a regular SPI case. Sometimes cases get backlogged for quite sometime and a lot of damage can occur during that delay to articles/editors (if blocking is encouraged to editors). I for one truely believe in reverting banned/blocked editors but some editors are insistent like this one is. I don't think anymore attentions to a sock should be given than is possibly necessary. There has to be some kind of a rational system set up to remove sock edits without harm to the editors doing the reverting. I've always thought that reverting a sock puppet is the best way to do it. With enough contact with a sock, you can get to know that editors writing and have a good feel for when it's the sock. As the case did show, socks were being identified with a lower count of mistakes which seems to show that the long term editors that are used to this sock have gotten pretty good at seeing a sock of theirs. Let's not go for damaging the editor(s) reverting disruptions over a socks which would be absolutely the wrong signal to send. As Count Iblis says you can be sure that this banned user is watching this and if it is found to have the editor reverting him/her is to be blocked than a lot of damage to either the article or a lot of editors can occur which is not for the good of the project. Thanks,--CrohnieGalTalk 16:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC) There are two points emerging here. The first is that there is lack of clarity over "vandalism" when it comes to spotting Scibaby, and as such Viriditas is due a bit of leniency. The second one is that some editors feel that experience with Scibaby is a license to ignore process with impunity, so long as "you know" it's a sock. The first seems fair enough, but the second is not acceptable. There has to be a process of some kind whereby suspected Scibaby sockpuppets are examined properly. The last thing that any controversial area needs is introduction of a principle of ignoring all process. It opens up both opportunities for disruption, and grounds for legitimate complaints of bias in Wikipedia. In a topic like this there are enough people involved that a single editor should not need to contravene 1RR. Mention Scibaby in the first revert, and other editors will join in until the SPI can be completed. Let's not have the tail wasg the dog.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC) If a productive contributor is blocked under 1RR for reverting the latest in a prolific series of socks, that, my friend, is the tail wagging the dog. The 1RR, and all other discretionary sanctions, exist to make it easier for productive contributors to edit these articles. They aren't intended to handicap the small number of editors who still dare to handle Scibaby socks. Rules don't exist for their own sake; they exist to facilitate constructive contributions. I think you're being (pardonably) naive when you suggest that other editors will jump in to revert Scibaby and make 1RR violations unnecessary. That is actually what has happened in the past. And it was used against those editors, as evidence of "tag-teaming" and "drive-by reverting". At this point, I don't understand why anyone would risk reverting even an obvious Scibaby sock, because one way or another it will come back to hurt you. I certainly won't bother. Let's say I'm right 95% of the time, which would be a superhuman success rate for sockpuppet identification. At most, it will take 20 sockpuppets (a month or two of output for Scibaby) before I make a mistake, at which point I can be tarred, feathered, and marginalized, if not sanctioned outright, for my trigger-happiness. ArbCom has identified problems in the handling of Scibaby socks, but they've provided zero in the way of solutions to those problems, while making clear that people who are willing to deal with them can expect no support (and quite the opposite - they can expect to be thrown to the wolves with the help of unclear and misleading "checkuser estimates" of their false-positive rates). We have no checkuser help on this, as far as I can tell - at least none that even remotely keeps pace with the creation of socks. MastCell Talk 16:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC) (ec)Arbcom was quite clear that too many false alarms have been raised about Scibaby in the first place. Reverting can wait on innocuous edits until some sort of evidence is provided, else we shall have innumerable claims of Scibaby sightings rivalling Elvis. Collect (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Arbcom made it abundantly clear that the only acceptable false alarm rate for Scibaby socks is zero. Since there's a possibility that even checkuser evidence can be incorrect, editors and admins who revert or block Scibaby socks either are foolish, or they simply don't care what will happen to themselves.Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC) There's no way I will revert anything on a CC article or talk page now, after seeing the way good people were thrown to the wolves recently for trying to maintain those pages. If that means that the socks now have them, then that is a problem for someone else to solve. --Nigelj (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Viriditas This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Checkuser has (not surprisingly) confirmed that the sock was in fact a sock, so this request is moot. We must absolutely not allow Scibaby to succeed in getting legitimate users risk sanctions for opposing him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC) No violation. Reverting socks of banned users, confirmed or not, is exempt from 1RR and 3RR. Prolog (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC) First, reverting socks of banned users are exempt from xRR rules. Second, I will not block someone for reverting an account when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the account is a sock of a banned user, whether or not it turns out to be a sock. The endorsement for checkuser by an SPI clerk is sufficient for this purpose. T. Canens (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)