Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:01, 8 April 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

Edit this section for new requests

NootherIDAvailable (case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy)

NootherIDAvailable (talk · contribs) Single-purpose Homeopathy account. Despite being relatively new, has managed to cause massive disruption, including:

Copyvio:

This is a copyvio of http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/research/the_evidence_for_homeopathy.html, and this inserts text from http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Homeopathy.

Edit-warring:

For instance, here he repeatedly tries to add an RFC discussion to the article page, and gets upset and edit wars when people remove the vandalism:

[1] (reverted: [2]) [3] (Rev:[4]) [5] (Rev:[6])

Recruiting:

Among other places, [7].

Other:

Furthermore, he doesn't actually understand basic facts about homeopathy:

Here and elsewhere he claims that succussion does not just mean shaking, but shaking with dilution. This is completely wrong: The procedure is referred to as dilution and succussion, with unsurprisingly, dilution referring to the duilution, and succussion to the shaking.

He doesn't know what he's talking about, he's inserted copyvio, he's edit-warred, recruited, and he's a single-purpose account. Homeopathy is under an article probation per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy. I think a lengthy topic ban (taken widely to include all alternative medicine) is the best solution: It will give him a chance to learn more about Wikipedia, without allowing the disruption to continue. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been very patient with this user (not hard with everybody else being very strict), but after reviewing their first 7 edits I am afraid I agree this is not the kind of user we want around. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Citizendium is under the same copyright as wiki. Therefore anything can be cut and paste from them and this would not be a copyright violation. One is allowed to be a single purpose account and this only delutes the other arguments.

The use of the BHA quote above is however a blatant copyright violation. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least at present, Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL; Citizendium content is licensed under Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0. They're similar, but not identical. Neither license permits a user to lift parts of the work and insert it into another work, passing it off as his own, with no indication of the actual authorship. - Nunh-huh 02:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious to me that this person has come here only to defend his POV, and he is not going to drop his efforts, never mind how gentle we are or how many explanations we give him. See, among others, his repeated justifications that the POV tag was removed because there weren't homeopaths back then to defend it, that homeopaths have to be happy with the article, his plead to insert the POV tag in homeopathy and, at the same time, to remove it from osteopathy, naturopathy and chiropractic [8], see also "you skeptics"[9]. His only contribution is distracting people who are working to improve the article. Please topic ban him. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. He doesn't understand NPOV, sourcing (used Citizendium as a source!), or how to edit collaboratively. He's chosen the confrontational path and that should lead to a topic ban at the very least. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't indulged in Edit warring nor disruptive edits. I have followed the 3 revert rule. I hope I'm given another chance if I've done something wrong (and tell me what it is). I feel the articles on chiropractic and osteopathy are NPOV and the article on Homeopathy can also be like that and that's why I asked for a POV tag on that article because like User Lykantrop and others have said almost every statement by the homeopaths has been criticised throughout the article. Please observe my behavior when I edit other articles, before banning me. Thanks in advance for the help.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear: There is no proposal to ban you from Wikipedia. At worst, you'll need to go work in some less-controversial fields for a time to better learn wthat Wikipedia is about. A topic ban forbids you from editing certain articles, but the rest of Wikipedia is open to you. Homeopathy is not a very good article to start with on Wikipedia, its controversial, and, well, you have strong views on the issue. If you spend some time in the more relaxed articles throughout the rest of Wikipedia, you'll find it much easier to get used to Wikipedia: your dislike of the Homeopathy article and, as far as I can tell, its regular editors makes it very hard for the regulars to explain Wikipedia policy to you, as there's too much instant conflict if one of them tries to explain a problem, because you seem to see us as the enemy. In the calmer pools of the rest of Wikipedia, you'll be able to pick things up much more easily, and then can come back afterwards. But you really need to spend some time learning Wikipedia's culture and rules before coming back to a controversial article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor showed obvious signs of frustration yesterday, and since they have not edited outside of this topic since July 2008 an enforced break might help. During this time they could go back to editing other articles, cool down, and prepare a few specific examples of what they want changing - saying it should be like other articles isn't helpful, and neither is asking for the removal of sourced and notable information (be them criticism or whatever). Constructive suggestions and team work are what is needed here, and I hope that per Hans I have tried to be help this user and remained patient. Verbal chat 09:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there have only been three non homeopathy related edits by this account, what other article edits are we supposed to consider? I also find this edit worrying, in addition to the copyvio. Verbal chat 09:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban from homeopathy should be enough for now. It's up to him to decide if he wants to learn how to edit in a POV way, or if he wants to go to Chiropracty to repeat the same behaviour and get himself topic banned from all alternative medicine articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of editors who come here just to defend their POV. After a few months, they hopefully learn that this is frowned upon by the community (yet some still persist). This editor is essentially a newbie and hasn't been afforded the time to learn about the intricacies of WP:NPOV and WP:COPYVIO. I am sure that all of us had committed such "sins" early on in our Wiki careers The editor has stated that he/she will stay away from Homeopathy for the time being, and since blocks/bans are supposed to be preventative and not punative, I don't see any need for such a topic ban at this time. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think "massive disruption" is an overstatement in describing this user's editing practice to date. Perhaps we are all being a little oversensitive here given the volatile nature of the topic (homeopathy) at Wikipedia. This editor is not responsible for the past homeopathic grievances, so let's not treat this new editor as if he/she were. Let's assume some good faith and realize that even diamonds have rocky beginnings. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the support Levine. As a professionally qualified, licensed homeopathic doctor, it was irritating for me when my patients quoted from wikipedia - and when I read the article, I realised that every statement was criticised, unlike osteopathy, chiropractic etc. I'll avoid the homeopathy article for now, but do warn me if I'm doing something wrong, before I get banned. Thanks again.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you were concerned about the prominence of criticism in the article, why was your first edit to the talk page a suggestion that the criticism be made even more prominent? Brunton (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated AA2 Breach

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Meowy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was placed on AA2 editing restrictions on October 18, 2007, limiting him to a 1 revert per week. After a fresh report just few days ago (still be seen just below) [10], Meowy again violated this restriction by trying to reinsert a disputed map by a blogger on Azerbaijan Democratic Republic page:

1st Revert - 01:40, 4 April 2009
2nd Revert - 19:55, 4 April 2009

Besides the violation of 1RR, his reverts are contrary to discussion going on the talk page, with understanding that no disputed POV maps should appear on the page until there is consensus achieved. Atabəy (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is not "a disputed map by a blogger", but a map from Wikicommons authorized by Andrew Andersen and George Partskhaladze. Both are reliable experts on topic see for example the reviews [11][12]. It looks it is not a discussion over a known publication "Atlas of Conflicts" and a map from there, but simple removal of reliable material that Meowy just returned back. Andranikpasha (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with Meowy's restriction, being the admin who blocked him for his latest violation of it. The edit he reverted is not except from the restriction as "obvious vandalism", since the reliability of the map he reinserted appears to be in dispute (although I am not expressing an opinion as to whether it is reliable or not). For his repeated violation of AA2 restrictions, I am blocking him for a week. Sandstein 13:17, 5 April 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.

Ayn Rand

72.199.110.160 is currently engaged in an edit war on the article in breech of Arbcom ruling here. The IP has been doing a lot of constructive work in improving citations, but has also been inserting material that other editors consider biased refusing to engage in any conversation despite repeated requests see here. More recently the editor has inserted a series of mini essays on objectivist philosophy. This has been discussed on the talk page here and agreement reached that the material is inappropriate. Despite this the IP has re-inserted the material here and here. The IP has refused (or rather ignored) all requests to discuss matters on the talk page of the article. Requests to do so on the IPs talk page have been completely ignored, including ones warning that failure to do so would result in the issue being raised here. This is a pattern that also occurred last December before the Arbcom ruling. The reversions are similar in number to those that earned variable length topic bans for other authors and are compounded in this case by a resolute refusal to engage in any discussion. Ideally the imposition of a topic ban or other penalty maybe the only way to get this editors attention. --Snowded (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topic bans are social mechanisms, not software ones. If he doesn't engage in discussion odds are he won't recognize a topic ban. I would recommend a one to two day block to get his attention explaining that if he is going to continue contributing he needs to engage and not edit-war. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the users prior form I would be tempted to do both if it was my decision, however anything that gets the IP to engage would be appreciated. The advantage of a topic ban is that it enforces discussion as a social process and bans can then follow if the social process is ignored --Snowded (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor's contributions to the Ayn Rand article and related articles have been overwhelmingly positive, and I do not think the cited behaviour can be characterised as edit-warring; they do not tend to make successive reverts, and make attempts to compromise with interlocutors. That said, their lack of willingness to participate in talkpage discussions is quite regrettable. Skomorokh 13:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly positive yes Skomorokh, and for that reason I left reporting until they did start to make successive reverts against talk page consensus. Refusing to discuss changes on the talk page is just plain wrong and someone with some authority needs to tell them so.

I assume this section has been shaded in by mistake as no resolution is noted by the way --Snowded (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The shading was a formatting error by me in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Header. It is now fixed. Sandstein 15:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User is still not engaging on the talk page. Per ArbCom's decision we would greatly like some kind of administrative intervention here. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I reverted them today, referring to talkpage consensus, and they moved on without a challenge. Blocking would not serve any productive purpose, as all their lack of participation on the talkpage is doing is disenfranchising themselves from the decision-making process. If they start repeatedly reverting against talkpage consensus, we have a problem; til then, the article is improving as a result of both their edits and our discussions, and we ought to continue on this path. Skomorokh 21:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an injunction on all editors to engage on the talk page Skomorokh, they have reverted on a 2RR already and in the past and the sheer number of edits is over wealming and while many are cited, some are "flavoured" as was discussed at one point on the talk page.. Many of them are good, some are dubious sources, some are opinions. Blocking may or may not be the right option, but someone with some authority needs to tell them to engage. Relying on reversals is to encourage edit warring. --Snowded (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Wildbear

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.

The Original Wildbear blocked for a month. PhilKnight (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Wildbear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user's page states, Promoting accuracy in information. They have been disrupting Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center with tendentious, repetitious arguments. It is highly disruptive to repeat the same rejected proposals over and over again. We've seen this pattern many times before. I request that this account be banned from all 9/11 pages under WP:ARB9/11's discretionary sanctions. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 08:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each single-purpose account that shows up beating the drum for the conspiracy theories should be warned once, and then banned from the 9/11 pages. There's no reason to keep going through this again and again. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See for example User:DawnisuponUS. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who apparently had experience of editing Wikipedia before that account was created. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, some of the accounts appearing at this venue appear to be similar in personality to prior accounts that were banned. Jehochman ^Talk 19:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you or another administrator please give the user an official warning. That way they cannot claim lack of warning next time. There is in fact a warning about WP:NOR and 9/11 on their talk page at this very moment,[13] but it does not specificly mention the arbitration case. Jehochman ^Talk 18:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done,[14][15] Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there proof that The Original Wildbear is User:DawnisuponUS? A cursory inspection indicates although there is a small overlap they edit at different times of day. Is "similar in personality" to a banned user a criteria for banning another user? Is it good faith to request a user be warned without any proof he has done anything to warrant a warning "just in case"? As you say "some of the accounts appearing at this venue" in the plural I assume you mean me as I'm the only one outside of your own supporters posting. Justify or retract the accusation. Wayne (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No accusation was made. Stop disrupting this board with battleground tactics, please. Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user is still pushing Truther propaganda. [16] Could we get a topic ban please? Jehochman ^Talk 21:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Comment by User:WLRoss

This request appears to be a misuse of WP:ARB9/11. What The Original Wildbears user page states is irrelevant as it is not specific to the subject of the page in dispute and his beliefs should have no bearing on his licence to edit 911 pages without proof of POV pushing.

Wildbear has made a total of two requests in Talk for edits to the article page with another 9 edits explaining his reasoning. The first was a request on March 2 for a "brief explanation of the physics and mathematics" of the tilt of the upper floors before collapse be included in the page if worthwhile and the second was a request on March 17 to modify a section name.

The typical response to his first request (March 2) was that "as no reputable third party has covered it.. likely means it doesn't bear mentioning" and "the alleged tilt" along with accusations of WP:SOAPBOX for making the request. This totally ignores the fact that both Bazant and NIST, the RS used for much of the article, have both covered it. Wildbear made no more posts in this section after March 4 (almost 3 weeks ago). I see no problem with this section not being good faith on Wildbears part.

Wildbears second request (March 17) is problematic ONLY because he quoted a Steven E. Jones website but otherwise was also a good faith edit requesting a grammar fix. Replies dismissing Wildbear in this section ranged all the way from lies to misquoting sources with the only reply addressing the grammar being "It is not a matter of proper grammar" with the comment "Learn what grammar actually is" which is hardly constructive. Wildbear made no more edits in this section after March 18 (6 days ago).

The limited participation of Wildbear in the page, 9 edits over a period of 2 weeks with the last a week ago, contradicts accusations of tendentious and repetitious arguments on his part. If editors had replied to him without accusations and sidetracking in the first place there would have been no issue. Wayne (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is repetitious is that a new, single-purpose account appears revisiting all the same arguments as prior tendentious accounts that have been banned. We are not going through the same long process to the same endpoint each time a new account appears. Editors should be warned at most once or twice, and if they persist, they should be banned from 9/11 editing. There are millions of other articles they can edit. This should hardly be a problem. Furthermore, what an editor says on their userpage is directly relevant. We can take their self-declared agenda at face value. Jehochman ^Talk 16:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend having a list of issues that will not be discussed on the grounds that it would repeat old arguments. That list could then, perhaps, be added to the special sanctions of the 9/11 ArbCom ruling. As an example, the question of whether or not controlled demolition is a "conspiracy theory" could be defined as out of bounds. Or, if I understand Jehochman correctly, it could be considered out of bounds at least for SPAs or new users (just as only registered users can edit some articles at some times). I don't, of course, agree with such a policy, but I think it captures the principle on which I, for example, was topic-banned. As alternative you could identify a few places in the archives of the talk pages that new users could be directed to with a polite "We've talked about this before and decided [such and such]." This may not work, however, because most of these users will find some "new" angle that "needs" to be discussed. My preferred option is simply to tolerate the standing discussions as part of the behind-the-scenes activity that maintains the article. Part of the work/fun of editing these articles could be to explain the received view to holders of the increasingly familiar fringe view.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the Barack Obama talk page, they have an expandable FAQ towards the top of the page for this purpose. Of course, people still ask the same questions/raise the same objections over and over again, but it might help reduce them a bit. [17]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used the same solution in Talk:Alexander_the_Great and in Talk:Ejaculation, a "recurrent topics" list with links to the archives. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly we need to clear up a few things that Jehochman had alleged.

Neither of the two requests The Original Wildbear made as far as I'm aware have been brought up before.
Wildbear is not a new user having had the account for two years.
Wildbear is not a single purpose account as he has made only 5 edits to 911 related articles.
I hardly think Wildbears user page agenda of accuracy and good faith in editing is a negative that should get him banned.
Not only has he not been warned but has not behaved in a manner that requires a warning.

If there has been "tendentious and repetitious" editing it has been by the editors replying to Wildbear. For some odd reason his behaviour is being held to a much higher, if not impossible, standard than those editors who continually make personal attacks and misquote in support of their own claims to deny his edit requests. WP:ARB9/11 applies to both the editors who believe the official theory and the conspiracy theories equally yet seems to be "applied" ONLY to the later and arbitrarily at that for even good faith edits. This is leading to "ownership" of the article by a clique and discouraging legitimate editors from participating. I would take your lead and suggest that "There are millions of other articles they can edit" but I do not believe in preventing those I disagree with from editing. Wayne (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at his contributions they're nearly all focused on 9/11, so I think a block, possibly of a month, could be more appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 23:15, 6 April 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.

Topic ban needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Raquel Baranow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
WP:ARB9/11

See this diff. The editor was previously warned and has received extensive counseling here. They refuse to understand that Wikipedia is not for publishing original research and promoting conspiracy theories. Jehochman ^Talk 21:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to a 1-year ban? PhilKnight (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, this is obviously fringe theory soapboxing, but do you think a topic ban is warranted unless she edits the actual articles in the same vein? Sandstein 13:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd give her credit for using the talk page instead of editing the article. Claiming that she is using Wikipedia for promoting conspiracy theories is avoiding the fact that two of the five points in that diff are valid and could/should be addressed. If they actually have valid points these editors should be dealt with civily instead of requesting a ban just because they believe in conspiracies. Wayne (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I DIDNT HEAR THAT" on talk pages can be just as disruptive, i.e. wasteful of editors's time, as edits to articles. This editor should perhaps receive one more very explicit warning, but then imho a ban would be appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turning a talk page into a conspiracy theory chatroom is very disruptive. It wastes time of other contributors and disrupts the formation of consensus. Warnings and extensive counseling have been given. Unless the user provides a reason why things might be different, a ban is needed. I'll ask her to comment here.Jehochman ^Talk 19:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy, Dana was full banned 1 year for disruptive POV pushing in the talk pages, idem in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe science topic bannig Pcarbonn. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is biased and doesn't represent facts because U say the facts come from unreliable sorces. AE911Truth.org (Archetects & Engineers for 911 Truth) is not mentioned at all. We have a profesor at our university who is an archetect of heavy construction (bridges and more), who holds meetings a few times a year to discuss how the structure of the Twin Towers and WTC7 could never have fallen like that. If more archetects saw these videos (IMO, "Zeitgist" is propaganda) and read David Ray Griffin's books, they would join too. Popular Mechanics & Skeptic magazine aren't really reliable peer-reviewed journals (I've subscribed to Skeptic since the beginning and met/spoke to Michael Shermer several times, telling him he's not skeptical enough, etc. . . I inspired him to do the Holocaust issue but he ignored the forensics and logistics of the alleged murder weapon.) Griffin did a through debunking of the Popular Mechanics article/book. Popular Mechanics is like the Reader's Digest for mechanics. Do U consider Reader's Digest a reliable source or a place to pitch propaganda to the masses? I have nothing more to say on the article unless I find some more bias in it. I'd like to change the header to the topic I started to add, "Biased article" to see if other's agree. The article reads like a handout from the CIA or something that would appear in Reader's Digest. U wanna ban me 'cause U don't wanna have to deal with the elephant in the room, which is the pulverized dust several inches deep throughout Manhattan, the tiny debris pile, big, heavy beams hurled 600 yards, destruction of evidence at the crime scene, reliable witnesses/victims of explosions and molten metal in the basement. Could also be that if an Archetect/Engineer comes out agains't the Government's conspiracy theory, they would not get a government job. Like I said, I have nothing more to say there. If I do start another topic it will be after I look through the archives to see how many other people think the article is biased. I do promise to be very careful if I do post anything more there. I also want to watch the page to see how U handle other dissentors of the Official Conspiracy Theory. If Ur just gonna delete what they write on talk-pages like U did to me. It's only a matter of time before some prominant, retired archetect or a better, more informed dissentor comes along to challenge this article. There's no doubt in my mind thermobaric bombs brought down the WTCs. The two videos at the bottom of my webpage should be mentioned too. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. Jehochman ^Talk 21:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If she doesn't give us clear evidence that her behaviour will change, I'll support the ban. Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note she is still adding her website to articles [18]. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits to "Mammon" have been removed and I'm discussing it on the talk page. I made a mistake, the pic-link is not necessary. It's like a catch 22: U can't discuss improving an article about conspiracy theory at WTC without details about what the actual conspiracy theory is because none of the conspiracy theories (except the Government's) come from reliable sources? David Ray Griffin is reliable. Everything he writes is sourced. U guys have knee-jerk reactions to "conspiracy theory"? Are U not open-minded that U could be wrong? I'll change, I'm learning, some editors are more tolorant that U guys. I made some legitimate points in the talk-page at controlled demolition. The article is biased it doesn't tell the whole theory plus there are lotsa weasel words like saying "all mainstream engineers" agree with the government. I'm sure U've made mistakes here too when U first started out. I only recently got interested in editing Wikipedia . . . just so happens most of my interests are controversial, radical, revolutionary, anti-status quo. Some people, including my two brother-in-laws are really smart (and so am I) but when I mention a conspiracy theory, they immediately scoff. As if governments don't lie!? I won't refer to my website in any articles I edit. I did so here cause it is easier than citing the two videos directly. I know the URL to my website without looking whereas if I cited the two videos directly I'd hafta click through a bunch of stuff, open a bunch of windows, copy and paste. I promise to be very careful discussing conspiracy theory on controled demolition. Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in the original AN/I report on this editor, and Georgewilliamherbert and I, together with other editors, tried to explain WP policies on reliable sources, POV-pushing, WP:SOAP, verifiability (including Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth and so on. Following some comments about "being a new editor" and "learning", with other comments verging on the uncivil about "faceless and nameless editors" censoring "the truth" on Wikipedia Raquel withdrew for a short period, citing ill-health and commenting "let's resolve this". She returned very shortly afterwards and commenced the same POV-pushing on talkpages rather than on articles. She seems unable or unwilling to accept WP policies either primarily in terms of verifiability and reliability of sources or secondarily in terms of collegial editing. She appears unable to accept that WP is not there as a platform for her to air her views irrespective of policy. I support a topic ban as proposed. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done commenting on the controlled demolition page. I learned my lesson interfering there but it is a biased article. Tony we just have a different idea of what the page should be about. I thought readers could try to improve articles. That's what I sincerely wanted to do but can't 'cause U say David Ray Griffen, AE911Truth.org, 911Reports.com, or this video about explosives (with plenty of credible references) are not reliable sources or worth mention. The video has had over 10,000,000 viewes on YouTube. It's a question of who is telling the truth. We know governments lie, especially U$A, we've assassinated heads of state all over the world, including a coup d'etat in Dallas, 11/22/63. I'll look through all the archives for a thread about bias in the article. If I find anything significant showing readers think the article is bias, then maybe I'll raise the issue for a consenses, major re-write? If U'r going to say, "That won't happen," (even if consensus says the article is biased), please explain why? Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget topic ban, propose complete ban. It takes absolutely no virtue of the imagination to work out once 9/11 related articles are off limits to Raquel, she will put her attention elsewhere - most probably on Holocaust and Holocaust denial related discussions, and with regards to this page, it cannot be argued that such anticipation is without basis. WilliamH (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Unless and until Raquel accepts that NPOV does not mean "take a neutral article and add unreliable, biassed sources to taste" a ban seems appropriate to avoid further disruption. Keeping the soapboxing to talkpages is no more than gaming the system. Tonywalton ^Talk 10:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the article isn't neutral, it's biased, the editors there are intolorant, they accept NO dissent or contrary views and they're ganging up on me. I'll impose a ban on myself. I'll cool-it. I learned my lesson! I really, honestly thought I was offering evidence to improve the article or at least show what the conspiracy theorists believe. What I wrote on the talk-page should NOT be erased as my previous comments there were (maybe I wrote it badly but I re-wrote it). Peace & Love guys but more and more mainstream people are comming out against the government's conspiracy theory. 9/11 is the JFK conspiracy of our day. In this past month or two that I began monitoring articles here I've really learned a lot and made some nice friends. We just have a disagreement on what "Reliable Sources" are. I don't believe many of the sources in the Controled Demolition article are reliable. They rely on ONE person as an expert and ignore others, they consider "Popular Mechanics" & "Skeptic" Magazine as, "mainstream, peer-reviewed" journals. I subscribed to Skeptic since the beginning, met Michael Shermer twice, had letters published there and inspired Shermer to write the Holocaust issue (but he didn't evaluate the hard, forensic evidence). I learned my lesson, no ban is necessary, I'll impose it myself!!!! Peace & Love! :) Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User said, Moslems are demographically taking over the Middle East and are infiltrating Europe. [19] I think we have, despite possibly good intentions, a user who's goals conflict too much with Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 13:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have many good friends in Europe who are saying that (on my flickr site) and I tell them their attitude is the same as Hitler's toward Jews. Bill Clinton recently said that demographics is Israel's #1 problem. I'm just repeating facts. People in Europe are opposed to this infiltration as people in the U$A are opposed to infiltration by illegal immigrants. Ur making me look like a bigot! I'm the most open-minded tolorant person U can imagine . . . I have dated people of all nationalities, religions. Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support a topic ban, and possibly something more if the problematic behaviour doesn't stop. This is clear soapboxing and the user doesn't seem interested in abiding by policy. Hut 8.5 13:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

Okay, the comments by Raquel Baranow (talk · contribs) on this page have convinced me that her approach to editing Wikipedia is fundamentally incompatible with our goals and principles, and I have blocked her indefinitely. I do not object to an unblock by any administrator who disagrees, although I strongly recommend that, if unblocked, she is made subject to a 9/11 topic ban for which we have clear consensus here. Sandstein 14:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse this block. However, if another administrator unblocks her, I propose that the subject ban is extended to Holocaust and Holocaust denial related articles. Enough time has already been spent patiently articulating to Raquel why her propositions are inappropriate, and I don't see why any more volunteer time should be wasted. WilliamH (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely no objection to keeping her blocked until a topic ban is formulated. It doesn't look likely that this editor will ever do much that isn't counter-productive if allowed to edit these articles freely. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the block, especially as the editor posted a (declined) unblock request that essentially repeats various 9/11 allegations and accuses other editors of covering things up.--Hut 8.5 17:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely reasonable block. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 6 April 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.

Per WP:ARBPIA, User:Drsmoo in Gilad Atzmon

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.

Drsmoo informed of ARBPIA restrictions by PhilKnight, who has decided nothing more should be done regarding this incident. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drsmoo was blocked March 24th for 3RR and accusations of antisemitism against other editors. Here is my report to 3RR about his behavior in the article about musician/writer Gilad Atzmon.

~~DrSmoo did engage in 3rr again today as of this edit to get his way with his edits.~~

More importantly, instead of dealing with other editor’s WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:editwarring concerns with his edits (as expressed in these sections: here, here and here), he has continued to engage in attacks. Here and here he makes all sorts of barely relevant or inaccurate charges related to the antisemitism issue, including twice from doing research on an editor’s off-wikipedia activities which is against WP:harassment. Obviously, he is producing a very difficult editing environment!

Enforcement action: Whatever seems appropriate to stop him from disrupting this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a correction, I was blocked only for 3rr and nothing else. Nor have I ever made any accusations regarding any editor. Anyone clicking Carol's links will see that any part of those edits which could be construed as a personal attack were removed by me and do not exist on the talk page. I made no personal attacks, secondly, contrary to her own statements, the article does not belong to Carol Moore, and it is not her article that has been written for a year, she was only one of many editors working on the article. This current controversy began when I included at the time recent statements by Atzmon such as "I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop." At which point there was a mad dash to get those quotes removed by any means necessary, including saying they were quotefarming etc. Other than accidentally reverting more than allowed on a single day I haven't broken any wikipedia rules whatsoever. In addition, according to the Wikipedia rules on 3rr, I was not in violation in my edits in any way today, despite being accused today of 3rr violation.Drsmoo (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my report to 3RR which included complains about edit warring behavior; so I assume that was part of the reason for the block. Your Block reads: "Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war."
I should have included in the first 3rr report these "attack" diffs [20], [21], [22] - all attacks because you consider any editors' attempt to present subject's views in WP:RS context or to allow the subject to defend themselves against allegations to be somehow bigoted and feel you must express that fact.
I quoted diffs above of two attacks accusing editors of being supporters who share all Atzmon's views; the diffs reflect the earlier view and newer side of the diffs, which still represent attacks. Also searching the internet to present people's allegedly POV views (usually out of context) is not cooperative editing.
This is not the place for debate on content issues; my complaint is about attacks instead of debate responsive to issues raised in sections mentioned above.
As for 3RR I noticed in middle of complaint, that was an error where I had a temporary confusion and thought 3 was over the limit. My apologies on that one! ~~not sure if I should give those diffs here or at WP:3rr and have a question in on that.~~ CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilad_Atzmon&diff=281304172&oldid=281125856Edit warring over a section devoted to a musicians political beliefs, and particularly over the responses by other parties to the individuals stances, appears to be an argument over application of WP:UNDUE (not that it is mentioned). As the editors are in dispute over an area that is covered by WP:ARBPIA, I think that the editors should be warned specifically that these edits are covered by those restrictions. While I believe the revert warring between Drsmoo and Malcolm Soscha (sp?) violates the spirit of WP:3RR, the larger concern is that regarding WP:UNDUE. I suggest that when that is established then we can look into the application of AE restrictions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA has been linked to a couple times, mostly in long name form. Plus I recently added this section warning about more possible sanctions to two editors already sanctioned that I just noticed was deleted. Actually WP:UNDUE - which seems to be a content issue - has been one of the issues, as discussed in in this archive section and elsewhere. However, you can't discuss it in a constructive manner if the editor is calling you an antisemite if you disagree with his edits. This is a repeated behavioral issue of edit warring and uncivility. CarolMoore Failed to sign 5 April CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add that anyone viewing the discussion page can see that I never once called Carol Moore anything, let alone calling her an antisemite. Drsmoo (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above I am referring to specific comments you have made about more than one editor as well as ones about myself. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that CarolMooreDC is accusing me of calling her an antisemite. In fact she has made a long series of this, and other accusations against me (some on this noticeboard, and more on the article talk page...as well as other noticeboards) but has never produced a single diff. I would like her to either produce some evidence of her many charges against me, or stop making them because this is disruptive. (I have said that I think Gilad Atzmon is antisemitic, and there are plenty of reliable sources in the article to support that view.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I note that CarolMooreDC has not notified Drsmoo of the accusation against him/her on this noticeboard. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly is not about Malcolm Schosha. I just corrected "you" to "one" and added User:Drsmoo so there is no misunderstanding. Anything about you would be addressed with relevant diffs to the administrator who sanctioned you in this arbitration enforcement last week here, as another editor already reminded you on the Atzmon article today. And I didn't see anything about notification of Drsmoo above, but have no problem with doing so. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Moore should refrain from talking bad about fellow editors on her talk page while "teaming up" with those who hold similar positions to her. Drsmoo (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean here I was looking for advice on whether to go to WP:COIN about an editor on this article and eventually I did and the editor was warned about it here. I don't like bringing complaints, but this article has been the worst I've seen and made it necessary. Seeing the Drsmoo tag team complaint below, and looking more closely at my talk page, I see some other minor grousing about other editors on the article; if that's illegal, please spell it out somewhere. It's not in the tag team Essay.CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not "warned", I was "advised". A very different matter. Warning implies that I had committed an offence, and was reprimanded and told not to do so again; advice is another editor's opinion, and implies no impropriety on my part. RolandR (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Having avoided these kinds of actions in the past, I do get confused about various terms and their implications. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified Drsmoo of the WP:ARBPIA editing restrictions, and given him some editing advice. In my humble opinion, further action isn't required at this stage. PhilKnight (talk) 18:31, 7 April 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.

Dr. Dan

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

Request concerning Dr. Dan

User requesting enforcement: _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Dr. Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren or Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes#Editors_reminded
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: Primary. Supporting: [23], [24]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Those comments are more then unhelpful and violating WP:AGF, they create a battleground atmosphere and encourage editors to flame and snipe. The remedy above specifically warns editors involved in EE topics to avoid creating battlegrounds, and Dr. Dan has been familiar to it, and was put on the warning list soon after the arbitration ([25]).
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): As specified in the cited remedy, although a topic ban from discussions of EE topics may be considered instead.
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. User_talk:Dr._Dan#Courtesy_notice

Discussion concerning Dr. Dan

I dunno if it's just lack of self-awareness, but there's nothing in these diffs, and certainly less than Piotrus' comment yesterday "remember that no amount of logic and evidence will change the opinion of a nationalist true believer. For some, Vilnius was forever 100% pure Lithuanian Vilnius, likely created that way when the universe begun.", directed towards his opponents on Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655). He was engaged in similar forum-shopping against myself yesterday, Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Bad_faith_towards_me. Best thing to do is to direct Piotrus to make more dialogue with those who disagree with him rather than constantly trying to get them into trouble on frivolous pretexts. Dr Dan it should be said is a highly educated, and intelligent user with good historical knowledge, who constantly has to deal with tendentious multi-blocked nationalists trolling and reverting him; at worst he could maybe cut down on sarcasm sometimes, but he is not by any means half as problematic a user as, for instance, User:Radeksz whom Piotrus has gone to a lot of trouble to protect. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Deacon care to in anyway substantiate the (libelous) claim that I am a "problematic" user? Is this just because I have disagreed with you and participated in discussion where I took a different view than you did? Is it because I've taken issue with tendentious, disruptive editing on the part of Dr. Dan (and a couple of others) who've tried to insert text based on extremist nationalist sources into Lithuania/Poland related articles? Or is it just my general existence and participation in the Wiki project which is "problematic" for you? I hate to be touchy about this but since this is part of the pattern, I'm gonna request an apology from you here.radek (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this isn't even addressing the second claim that somehow Piotrus "protects me" which is just ridiculous (particularly since if I'm not "problematic" I don't need protection). I'm guessing you're referring to that one instance where M.K. tried to get me unsuccessfully blocked for edit warring - in a discussion he personally was not involved at all, just you know, he made the report out of a sense of duty - which was a heated disagreement but not a violation of Wiki guidelines. In that instance Piotrus, in his capacity as an admin, issued a warning to myself and to the other editor involved, which put an end to the problem and which action was rightly considered as the correct one by other administrators (though I'm sure it left M.K. and maybe some others disappointed).radek (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Dr. Dan's actions, all I know is that shortly after the discussion on Battle of Vilnius commenced he showed up on an article I just created, Białystok pogrom, and made several provocative edits, without apparently looking at the sources first, in what looked like an attempt to create another battlefield. These changes are listed by Piotrus above. In general I find discussion about controversies with Dr. Dan quite difficult since, in addition to the sarcasm which even Deacon noted (and the problem with sarcasm in a written medium is that aside from its implicit lack of AGF, its use can make it quite difficult to understand what another editor is saying particularly when the sarcasm is not employed with sufficient skill) in almost every instance he tries to change the subject to anything but what is actually being discussed. Examples of this can be found both on the talk page of Battle of Vilnius as well as other talk pages of Lithuania/Poland related articles (for example [26]).radek (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand it's genuinely not my wish to give you a hard time here, Radeksz, as this wouldn't be the place for it anyway. It's my wish to make the context clear to other admins reviewing Piotrus' request, and there is no chance of disciplinary action coming down against you. The evidence posted by Piotrus involves you, so unfortunately you have to be discussed.

I don't recall any active disagreement with you, and I wouldn't count us voting on different sides of a recent poll notable disagreement. It's based on your editing pattern and your disciplinary record, which can be verified by viewing your user contributions, your block log, user talk history, and by searching the archives of WP:AN/3. In regard to this, and since you have requested, to Piotrus' protection, I will repost evidence composed by User:Sciurinæ from a recent Arbitration clarification request, which will illustrate the situation; readers can compare Piotrus' treatment of you with Piotrus' treatment of Dr Dan:

This is Radeksz's three 3RR violations and all of Piotrus' reactions to them:

First 3RR violation: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 (the violation wasn't reported). Piotrus couldn't contact him off-wiki to warn him and the case about his tag teaming was still on. Piotrus actually took the trouble of going to pl.wiki to ask Radeksz for his mail.[27] Piotrus also took part in the edit warring at the article before Radeksz, which resulted in page protection later after the second violation.[28]
Second 3RR violation: Same page one day later.[29] Piotrus then secretly warned him in Polish about getting blocked for 3RR and to have a look at his message in pl.wiki.[30] This constitutes usage of another language to conceal improper conduct (see remedy). Piotrus also supported unblocking of Radeksz ([31]), and ignored his formula (it goes: when A has 4 reverts and B has 3, only A should receive a consequence. The formula was only designed after Piotrus often had 3 reverts and Boodlesthecat 4 anyway).
Third 3RR violation: Piotrus closes the issue himself to avoid a block.[32]

--- Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. There's one (semi) legit block there (it wasn't a 3RR vio but the admin decided to crack down on the edit wars that were going on - in a very one sided way I might add), due to a report by a real "problematic" user who got himself banned for a whole year due to his propensity for edit wars and incivility. The other two are just spurious attempts by Deacon to smear me - note I already discussed the 3rd one above, reported by M.K. (and the reason 1st one wasn't reported was because these were completely diff edits as was the 3rd). And of course that record is no worse than this [33] (so does Deacon consider himself a "problematic" user as well? [34]) Now. Yeah, Piotrus asked me for my email when he noticed that there was another Polish editor editing Poland related pages. Yeah, he warned me not to violate the 3RR rule (in Polish probably in order to see if I actually spoke it). And yeah, as I already said above in one case he issued warnings. So what? This is the mentality that looks for conspiracies where none exist and which thinks that somehow if two different Polish editors have the nerve to edit the same Poland related article then they must be scheming. This has already been discussed to death in several different RfA's and other forums (quite honestly I can't find it atm), with the explicit finding that there is no cabal or conspiracy here, that these chargers are frivolous and that ordinary communication between two editors who happen to be of the same nationality should not be automatically viewed with suspicion, as Deacon is trying to do here. Further. It takes a certain amount of chutzpah to call me "problematic" - even though Dr. Dan's the one that has an official restriction on him for his previous actions, and Deacon has been officially "admonished" to avoid edit warring (not to mention the "it's not my intent to give you a hard time" - just call you "problematic"). Still want that apology Deacon.radek (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to that 3rd supposed 3RR violation, here is an uninvolved editor noting that it wasn't a 3RR violation [35], and here is another uninvolved editor stating that Piotrus' action in this case were appropriate and telling Deacon to quit wasting everyone's time with frivolous complaints (as he is doing here) [36], and yet another admonishment for Deacon not to waste people's time by an uninvolved editor [37], and again (after Deacon tried to drag it out) [38], but Deacon and MK insisted on going so they got another one [39], and then this one as a combination of another acknowledgment of the appropriateness of Piotrus' action and criticisms of Deacon's [40]. Ok, enough. The point is that this particular matter was opened and closed and there's no point in bringing it up again and this is just Deacon's attempts to re-fight old battles.radek (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Wow, I felt a little bit of pride reading the thread and out of the blue seeing my summary for a request for clarification cited. But here comes the denial already. For what little it's worth, since it's off-topic, I understand that the third 3RR vio was complicated to understand. The second and first, by contrast, couldn't be any more obvious: in the second one you've restored the exact same parenthesis with OR four times in a row about, yet you still deny it was a 3RR vio. In the first 3RR vio, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, you've re-added exactly the same comment of yours about Pawlikowski into the article four times as well, yet you claim the diffs are completely different. I'm not sure why you don't want to accept it because there's no consequences possible for the vios after so much time has passed but for those who actually check the claims for correctness, this will only leave you looking as unreliable.) Sciurinæ (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget that the evidence against Radeksz (completely irrelevant to Dr. Dan) was brought by Deacon to ArbCom and thrown out with a comment (from arbitrator Coren): "It is impossible, in this context, to see this request as little more than forum shopping; and an attempt to misuse the committee into a bludgeon in a vendetta.". EOT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: This enforcement request is concerned solely with the edits of Dr. Dan. Issues relating to any other user should be discussed in their proper place per WP:DR; such comments may be removed without notice from this thread. Sandstein 06:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I tried to refactor this discussion to separate discussion of Radeksz, but Deacon reverted me. See [here].--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This "refactoring"[41] also played down the link about your involvement as "Off-topic discussion concerning Radeksz", even though it shows that you did exactly the same as Dr. Dan. Granted, Deacon needn't and shouldn't have brought up Radeksz at all. But it is poor style to file away a relevant complaint about your role like that. Sciurinæ (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Why, given the guideline states The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise, was it processed? It was not normal? Novickas (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus left that part blank and refrained from informing him. I left Dr Dan a courtesy notice. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little example of Dr Dan's usual practice of turning Wikipedia into a battleground and a laughing stock. Here [42]. Tymek (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tymek, please understand that an AE thread is not for open season on article edits you disagree with. It's to request and discuss the enforcement of arbitration case remedies. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sad. Not encyclopædic, by any reasonable measure. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of WP:POINT disruption, although I will add that it is an exception to the rule: majority of controversial edits by Dr. Dan are not in article space, but on talk, where they display much bad faith, and start or contribute to various flames. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Deacon of Pndapetzim and I do not consider the edits by Dr. Dan that have so far been provided as liable to trigger an EE sanction for "repeatedly or seriously failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Speaking for myself only, I will in any case not contemplate any enforcement action as long as the request section contains no notification diff. Sandstein 05:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three editors involved in discussion with him have given examples of how he turns the discussions into battlegrounds. Here's another diff: quoting hate speech. His edits are not intended to create a helpful, friendly collaborative editing atmosphere, but to antagonize people and derail any useful discussion with off-topic remarks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, that comment from Dr. Dan Feb 2008 is addressing an argument you made earlier in that thread. Opinion may vary I suppose as to its relevance, but that "hate speech" is a quote from a former Prime Minister of Israel, offered as an argumentative parallel. This post, like the others you've linked, is well within normal talk page culture on wikipedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's another example of Dr. Dan trying to 1) change the topic from what is being discussed (Holocaust in Lithuania) to something else (Poles and anti-semitism) and 2) doing so in a purposefully provocative manner intended to antagonize other editors (yes, I realize intent is unobservable but a pattern of behavior, as documented here, constitutes indirect evidence for it)radek (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you aren't confusing Dr. Dan with Deacon of Pndapetzim? Dr. Dan seems much quieter here than the latter. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm commenting on Deacon's comment on Dr. Dan's comment. So it's about Dr. Dan.radek (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is very disconcerting, and I don’t know if Digwuren Discretionary sanctions constitute a better reference point than, let’s say, the Eastern European disputes Remedies to deal with this chronic illness of good will. I think Dr. Dan’s behavior warrants some sort of preventive action, like in the case of Lokyz blocked by PhilKnight for 48 hours,[43] because battlefield creation destroys the spirit of camaraderie among us. --Poeticbent talk 19:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digwuren and Poeticbent, AE is not a battlefield. I suggest both of you keep your grudges away and that neither of you post anything more here unless you are adding evidence related to Piotrus' report. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by addressing me along with Digwuren? Where did it come from? Your grudge against Piotrus is legendary[44] and requires no new evidence here, however, evidence against Dan presented by Piotrus is a lot stronger than that against Lokyz in the case mentioned above and could easily warrant a 48 hour block. --Poeticbent talk 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, if this: [45] (note - after this AE started) isn't an attempt to create a battleground and violate WP:Battle then I don't know what is and that policy clearly is meaningless. So Dr. Dan starts a section on talk page called "WP:Plagiarism" and asks "some...editors" to review their edits. When asked to be more specific he starts talking about something else. When the question is repeated he... eh, just see for yourself. The end result is that there's an accusation of plagiarism made, but no specifics, just a general aspersion cast on involved editors. And it continues...radek (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These diffs are getting absurd. Can someone please close this frivolous battle-fest of tendentiousness? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon, how is objecting to a user making very serious and apparently spurious allegations of plagiarism "absurd" or tendentious? Do you think it is ok to make such accusations and then evade making your accusations specific when asked?radek (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to restate my question for Deacon: what exactly is "absurd" or "tendentious" to objecting to frivolous, unsubstantiated and spurious charges of Plagiarism (for which, in real world, students get failed, people get fired, people get sued, reputations are ruined, etc. - all the good reason why Wiki takes copyvio and plagiarism very seriously)?radek (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was, um, close paraphrasing at the article - see the talk page [46]. Novickas (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because "Dr. Dan is opposing Piotrus, hence everything he does is justified"? I would like to stress to any reviewing admin that Deacon is far from neutral, random commentator here: he was the party that started last year's arbcom against me, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes (formerly, RfA:Piotrus 2), and for the past year, if not more, he has appeared in (as far as I can recall) every single AE thread started by me and defended the user that I was complaining about. See also this recent Wikiquette alert. I would also like to note that so far, four editors have expressed the concern that Dr. Dan is creating battlegrounds: me, Radeksz, Poeticbent and Tymek. And Dr. Dan was not put on the Digwuren list of users under sanction by accident... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you claim that Deacon pretends to be neutral towards you? Actually in the very first comment Deacon did note that you are also involved against him and pointed out the Wikiquette thread himself and didn't decide the result section despite the fact that he's quite involved in general AE handling. Unsurprisingly, you still found your "neutral, random commentator"s instead - in your known friends. But let's analyse the remaining claim in the above comment that hasn't been refuted yet: "for the past year, if not more, he [Deacon] has appeared in (as far as I can recall) every single AE thread started by me and defended the user that I was complaining about". Here are your AE threads for the past year. [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]. In how many of them was he involved? In one - he only provided a relevant link to the RfAr (the other 'argument' you used).

Speaking about assumption of good faith:

"His edits are not intended to create a helpful, friendly collaborative editing atmosphere, but to antagonize people and derail any useful discussion with off-topic remarks.".[53]
"remember that no amount of logic and evidence will change the opinion of a nationalist true believer. For some, Vilnius was forever 100% pure Lithuanian Vilnius, likely created that way when the universe begun."[54]
"Not quite. You agree with me, hence you are suspicous. If you were to disagree with me, you would be beyond doubt. Also, see this, rules #4, #8 and #9 should give you all the information you need :)" (link to "Poles are evil", insinuating a prejudice towards Poles).[55]
"Delete, in the name of Ministry of Truth = Keep, of course".[56]
"Perhaps because "Dr. Dan is opposing Piotrus, hence everything he does is justified"?".[57]
Or from another editor: "chronic illness of good will" ([58]) and linking to a post from himself saying "attempts to harass Polish editors - including me - based on anti-Polish sentiment and bad science). I already spoke about these malevolent campaigns during Eastern European disputes case" ([59]) Sciurinæ (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sciurinæ, would you mind telling us what brought you to this AE thread? And you agree above that Deacon shouldn't have discussed Radeksz, so how do you justify you trying to discuss me and others? I will just end by saying that what we see here is a common pattern: editor A violates our polices, editor B complains about editor A, and is targeted by editors claiming that editor A is violating the policies by daring to discuss editor B, who try to defend editor A by turning the discussion into a discussion of editor B. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me address two pieces of misinformation. One, I've left most of your many AE threads alone, including recently the Lokyz thread (but frankly as probably the most knowledgable admin for this area of regional conflict, other than yourself, I probably should turn up more!). Two, the four users are all your normal tag-team partners I'd expect to turn up here, and if you get more to turn up here that won't make your wonky evidence against Dr Dan more credible. It's no secret that I am one of many many users who have had a problem with much of your behaviour Piotrus, which as you said led to me launching an ArbCom case (your third I think) that led to three remedies against you. However, I'm not against you. I really just wish you'd devote more of your time focusing your efforts on your excellent article building sklls and forming good relationships with people other than those you think will help you win battles. But that's of little relevance here. The long old ad hominems you've been in the habit of launching against me and any one else whenever they try to ensure a fair hearing for one of your ideological "opponents" won't make your "evidence" against this one, Dr Dan, any stronger. Though AE admins can obviously sometimes be fooled, they aren't so naive as this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Dr. Dan

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

Per Tag-Teaming, WP:Cabals, User:Carolmooredc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

– Not an actionable enforcement request. Sandstein 17:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carolmooredc has been engaging in WP:Tag Team and WP:Cabals both on her own talk page as well as on other talk pages in violation of wikipedia guidelines against doing so. Examples are [[60]], [[61]] [[62]], [[63]] where she actively is working with similar minded editors as her to control the article as well as one other user pages [[64]]

She should be encouraged not to work behind the backs of the majority of the editors in an article, and make discussions regarding the article in the appropriate discussion page. Drsmoo (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

zOMG - never thought anybody would actually be using and refering to Elonka Policy :-( Shot info (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This request will be closed very soon if the information required for an enforcement request is not provided. Sandstein 11:29, 7 April 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.

Ksnow

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

Request concerning Ksnow

User requesting enforcement: Dragons flight (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Ksnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date_delinking#Temporary_injunction
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: See Abuse Log
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Ksnow has been engaged in a systematic program of editing that includes removing date links. On March 27 I mentioned the injunction to him. [65]. Three days later he blanked the section [66] without response. Since then he has removed date links from a further 150 pages. His edits are following a systematic (and alphabetical) pattern through French town stubs. He isn't only removing date links since he is also editing references and minor portions of other text, but it is clear he is following a systematic program of editing that covers a large number of pages and includes removing date links.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): I'll let someone else decide what is appropriate. I'd be happy to let this end without any sanction, if the user would stop the problematic edits rather than blanking the warning from their talk page and continuing to remove date links from hundreds of pages.
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [67]

Discussion concerning Ksnow

I agree that Ksnow's edits violate the injunction despite a clear warning. I am blocking him and advising him to make an unblock request stating clearly that he will not continue his programme of date delinking. I suggest this discussion be closed a day or so from now unless there are any further developments in this case. Sandstein 21:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ksnow has indicated a willingness to discontinue. I request an unblock. --Michael Snow (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Ksnow

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

ScienceApologist

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.

Someone re-posted content SA had written somewhere else, and it got reverted. Nothing to do. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning ScienceApologist

User requesting enforcement: KP Botany (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/<Fring science>#<Motion to sanction ScienceApologist>]]
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [68][69]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Heck if I know, posting here will probably result in my being banned and insulted and targeted by arbcom members-especially the one who already has a personal beef against me. It's a question. God knows where one can ask questions.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): clarification -- is this allowed? or not? the article is dreadful, the rewrite is comparatively elegant and appears, upon first glance, to be rather well-rearched and outlined
Additional comments: notification [70], plus will post link to this after this is posted. --KP Botany (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning ScienceApologist

It's quite simple: ScienceApologist has not been proxy editing. He's been working on an FA drive for the optics article in user space at Wikisource, with the consent of administrators at that project (myself included), and someone who was impressed with his work took the initiative to attempt to port it to Wikipedia without asking either SA or myself (SA's mentor) until after the cut and paste was done. I reverted the change, per GFDL, shortly after confirming with SA that he had not requested the import. There is nothing to enforce here. Durova^Charge! 22:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem to be an attempt to edit by proxy, in addition, because another user is discussing the article on SA's talk page.[71][72] --KP Botany (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You my trust my assurance, as his mentor, that ScienceApologist did not request that attempted port. The discussion at my own user talk explains it. Thank you for your diligence, but SA did not proxy. Durova^Charge! 23:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Others can decide, and let editors at optics know, and that will clear the way for the discussion at Talk:optics to focus on how, and when, if at all, the content can be used. The appearance is that SA is discussing the article with Wikipedia editors. After all, that's how other editors found out about it, to export it. It's on his talk page. --KP Botany (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upon what basis could they possibly decide? Must he violate his siteban and refute you here himself? The port was a license violation, done in good faith but unauthorized. We seek to improve the encyclopedia in compliance with policy, and without disruption. This request is becoming counterproductive. Durova^Charge! 00:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist did not make the edits here, and even if he jumped up and down at Wikisource begging for some patsy to post a vicious antifringe article here, he wouldn't be violating his ban. He gets to do whatever he likes off-wiki, though I suppose death threats would cross the boundary. He's done nothing wrong, he's worked hard on what appears to be an excellent article. If there is some bad source there, some hidden anti-fringe message, well, he's earned it with the excellent work, and the bad part will be discovered and fixed. In fact, KP Botany, if you want to do something useful, go to the article on Wikisource and look for problems. And fix them. If there is a bomb hidden there, you would do us all a service by finding it. If you have a problem with edits here, take it up with the editor who made them. I considered porting the page here myself, but I asked about it on Wikisource talk and was asked not to do it, because it should be done right, and someone who knows how to do it properly will do it, I presume. I am no friend of SA's antifringe agenda, and some of his supporters are currently agitating for me to be banned from fringe topics, but SA has done good work here, and it should be supported and recognized and not subject to harassment. The place to discuss the draft is on Wikisource. Alternatively, the proposed edit can be discussed at the Talk:Optics. But leave out the charges of meat puppetry and focus on the content. If there is some disruptive edit, then deal with the allegedly disruptive editor who made it, not a banned editor who is respecting the ban. --Abd (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning ScienceApologist

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed. Nothing to be done (see top). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:27, 8 April 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.

Bov

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

Request concerning Bov

User requesting enforcement: Jehochman ^Talk 13:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Bov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary_sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [73][74][75][76] and [77]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Repeatedly violating WP:V and WP:UNDUE to add Truther propaganda to Wikipedia. Feigning ignorance of policy, after having edited here for more than three years, and been sanctioned previously for violations of WP:ARB9/11.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Indefinite topic ban
Additional comments
[78]

Discussion concerning Bov

Firstly I request that, unlike some previous 911 ARBCOM cases, an uninvolved admin handle this case.
The first four diffs Jehochman provided [79][80][81][82] are no more than the same two sentences with multiple references, consistently reverted by a group of editors with a particular POV, that refer to a peer reviewed paper on findings that are used by the major proponents of the controlled demolition theory to support their claims. The edit contains no OR, POV or comment and as such is entirely compliant with the article subject. At worst Bov has technically broken his revert restriction while those reverting the edit are possibly themselves guilty of a violation of the 911ARBCom. The last of the diffs [83] is a talk page request for an explanation as to why the edit is being reverted. The only reply Bov is given to this request is "I have requested arbitration enforcement" by Jehochman who has a record of such POV behaviour as a first action in preference to either first warning an editor if concerned or answering such questions. This case needs to be viewed in light of the fact that the article name was recently changed from Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center to the more inclusive title World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Care should be taken to actually check the edits relationship to the article for the determination of good faith. Wayne (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You risk a sanction yourself when making snide comments on this board. Who are you suggesting has acted inappropriately here? If nobody, zip it. Jehochman ^Talk 16:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at Wikipedia:ARB9/11,[84] Bov is already on an indefinite 1rr per week restriction for previous IP abuse; he's clearly violated this. Is there a reason his edits haven't been reported in relation to this restriction? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That too! Diffs above. Jehochman ^Talk 16:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked him for 48 hours. Having had a look at his contributions, I see no reason why this guy should be editing a popular encyclopedia in this area and plenty of reason why he shouldn't. Since he's blocked anyway I'll leave this just now to allow other admins the chance to give input on the new restriction. If nothing's added in the next wee while I'll impose a new restriction. A three month restriction has the benefit of keeping him around [by incentive] within CU range, but if no other admin suggests anything else, I'm gonna just make it indefinite. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Bov

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

[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 319: / Line 319: @@
 :::::*"''Perhaps because "Dr. Dan is opposing Piotrus, hence everything he does is justified"?''".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=282463039&oldid=282457871]
 :::::*Or from another editor: "chronic illness of good will" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=282403772&oldid=282401513]) and linking to a post from himself saying "''attempts to harass Polish editors - including me - based on anti-Polish sentiment and bad science). I already spoke about these malevolent campaigns during Eastern European disputes case''" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=282429358&oldid=282427747]) [[User:Sciurinæ|Sciurinæ]] ([[User talk:Sciurinæ|talk]]) 18:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
+::::::::Sciurinæ, would you mind telling us what brought you to this AE thread? And you agree above that Deacon shouldn't have discussed Radeksz, so how do you justify you trying to discuss me and others? I will just end by saying that what we see here is a common pattern: editor A violates our polices, editor B complains about editor A, and is targeted by editors claiming that editor A is violating the policies by daring to discuss editor B, who try to defend editor A by turning the discussion into a discussion of editor B. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 19:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 :::::: Well, let me address two pieces of misinformation. One, I've left most of your many AE threads alone, including recently the Lokyz thread (but frankly as probably the most knowledgable admin for this area of regional conflict, other than yourself,  I probably should turn up more!). Two, the four users are all your normal tag-team partners I'd expect to turn up here, and if you get more to turn up here that won't make your wonky evidence against Dr Dan more credible. It's no secret that I am one of many many users who have had a problem with much of your behaviour Piotrus, which as you said led to me launching an ArbCom case (your third I think) that led to three remedies against you. However, I'm not against you. I really just wish you'd devote more of your time focusing your efforts on your excellent article building sklls and forming good relationships with people other than those you think will help you win battles. But that's of little relevance here. The long old [[ad hominem]]s you've been in the habit of launching against me and any one else whenever they try to ensure a fair hearing for one of your ideological "opponents" won't make your "evidence" against this one, Dr Dan, any stronger. Though AE admins can obviously sometimes be fooled, they aren't so naive as this. [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 01:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)