Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:52, 18 October 2011

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

Tuscumbia

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

Request concerning Tuscumbia

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tuscumbia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement

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

[1] First revert on Gülablı article on 27 Sept.
[2] Second revert on Gülablı article on 27 Sept.
[3] Third revert on Gülablı article on 28 Sept.
[4] First revert on 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 30 Sept.
[5] Second revert on 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 30 Sept.
[6] Third revert on 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 3 Oct.
[7] Fourth revert 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 3 Oct.

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

Warned on [8] by Stifle (talk · contribs)
Warned on [9] by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The recent edits which I have highlighted above are what I believe a mere sampling of the improper conduct of user Tuscumbia. Though well-acquainted with the rules of Wikipedia and after editing here for well over three years and after having been topic-banned for no less than three times, Tuscumbia displays an editing behavior that is highly unwelcome and needlessly combative. As the above examples show, he demonstrates a proclivity to edit war excessively and to engage immediately in revert wars over the most insignificant issues rather than taking part in fruitful discussions (in what can best be termed as having issues of WP:OWNERSHIP). Even when tags are added to an article, long after an editor has expressed his misgivings on the pertinent issues, he still decides to remove them and claims the other editor's concerns as baseless. But is that really his judgment to make? Although in discussions reasonable arguments (to most viewers) are introduced, Tuscumbia chooses to play games and makes burdensome and unrealistic demands which are not all in accord with Wikipedia's guidelines but appear to aim mainly to exhaust the other editors' patience. And when a user finally expresses his exasperation over these type of time-consuming edits, all he receives is a response like this: "You know what? You can complain as much as you want because that's the only thing you're capable of..." ([10]). How do remarks like this help at all? And even after his long time spent on Wikipedia, he still feels he can create articles with such non neutral POV opening sentences as "The Vrezh...is an underground militant movement reportedly created by Dashnak leadership in 1989 to torment Azerbaijan..." [11] until another editor informs him of why such wording is so problematic.

Much as I was opposed to it, I was told to present here my grievances by an administrator who is relatively familiar with such cases. I myself do not know what is to be done but familiar as I am with Tuscumbia's long history of edit wars and his tendency to make snide remarks against other editors, I believe perhaps a form of revert parole needs to be established to compel him to express his views on the talk page, rather than drive him to press the revert button with whatever edit he disagrees with. His attitude toward others must also become more constructive because what he is doing can best be termed as stonewalling. Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should like to add that this request has been re-listed after being archived by the bot on October 10.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, even though Tuscumbia has been warned and topic banned twice for specifically choosing to exclude a sources based on his or her ethnicity, he still continues to use it in his arguments as evidenced by a remark he made just today.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[12]

Discussion concerning Tuscumbia

Statement by Tuscumbia

Frankly, I don't even know how to react to this report which has no grounds, no evidence of wrongdoing and most importanly, is filed in bad faith. First off, the report itself is apparently filed in retaliation to the report I had filed on Takabeg which also included the inputs from Marshal Bagramyan. You might notice that ever since that report was filed (and was archived without result for reasons which I still don't understand), Marshal has been following me on articles I created such as 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing, 1991 Azerbaijani Mil Mi-8 shootdown and Vrezh in an obvious attempt of trolling and disruptive editing activity. Now, I would understand if an editor has grounds for concern and puts forward reliable sources to support his arguments, but you will not see that in Marshal's edits and arguments. I will present that evidence below.

Article Gülablı: In his report above, Marshall hides the evidence of his wrongdoing. On September 15, he made this edit, replacing the legitimate name of Gulabli with Vazgenashen, which is an illegitimate name given by the separatist authorities currently in control of the village, albeit the name Gulabli is sourced from a neutral GEOnet Names Server. More importantly though, he added this Armeniapedia link as a source for his additions. Armeniapedia is a one sided unreliable source owned and operated by User:RaffiKojian ([13]) who has been recently collaborating with Marshall on articles Dashalty and Barda, Azerbaijan. Off-Wiki coordination? His second edit is the revert to his version from User Dighapet and third edit is the revert from my version where I restored information based on neutral sources, including the name Vazgenashen as called by Armenians and adding links to other Wikipedia, removing the Azerbaijani drone shootdown section which incorrectly referred to the village as Vazgenashen, based on Armenian news piece Armenian Reporter. My second revert on September 27 13:58 and one on September 28, commenting on existence of POV on the talk page [14] and [15]. As another user Vugar mentioned providing a link to Wikimapia, the village Vazgenashen is not even the same village. See the map and description in Russian: Село, построенное после Карабахской войны для армян-беженцев (A village, built for Armenian refugees after Karabakh war)

Article 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing, my revert on September 30 is the undoing of Marshall's I DON'T LIKE IT attitude, where he replaced the word "terrorist" and removed the affiliation of the terrorist group to Dashnaks, completely disregarding the sources [16] and [17] which corroborate the text of the article. My second revert is undoing of the edit by a sockpuppet Szeget of an infamous sock master Xebulon (I do wonder how this sockpuppet finds his ways to be on the same page as Marshall. Off-wiki coordination? Ducking?) My first revert on October 3 is undoing of Marshall's violation of WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT because all he does is change the sourced data to make it seem less reliable by removing words like "perpetrators" and reference to Dashnaks, again, when the text is supported by sources and while Marshall does not provide a single source for his changes although I repeatedly asked him to provide sources which corroborate his argument and changes [18], [19], [20] which he, in turn, calls "overburdensome request". My secondrevert on October 3 is the removal of POV and Unreliability tags which Marshall added on October 3 in the absence of any sources to support his arguments and changes. To sum up, instead of looking for sources supporting his arguments, he likes to just add tags. Tags are added when something is disputable and both sides present sources upon which compromise is being reached. This user adds tags as last resort to mislabel the article, already well sourced.

Article Vrezh, sourced with 3 reliable sources: Marshall was just as active in disputing the data in this article. While his mentioning of reportedly created by Dashnak leadership in 1989 to torment Azerbaijan above is correct, he selectively forgets to mention that I did respond to him saying I was going to add quotation marks to the words directly quoted from the book: the Dashnak leadership created an underground armed movement called Vrezh ('vengeance' in Armenian) which was to torment Azerbaijan and the northern Caucasus for years to come, but that I reworded it to ...to fight Azerbaijan and authorities in Northern Caucasus by bombing civilian targets, which still didn't satisfy Marshall and to which his response was the information is copied from "Azerbaijani websites", which is a baseless claim by itself because no Azerbaijani website has been used in creating this article. Needless to say, Marshall's arguments derive from not liking what is sourced in the article.

Last, but not least, Marshall's misuse of admin's note as if it were instructions from AGK to report me, is simply an act of intended misrepresentation. AGK asked to report your concerns on this board to resolve the issues instead of asking him to resolve in on his page, not because he reviewed the evidence and supports you.

One more thing Marshall selectively forgets when bashing me about topic bans, is that he himself has been a subject to revert paroles and topic bans on AA2 4 times, including an indefinite topic-ban on Azerbaijan-Armenian pages (later reduced to one month) and indefinite restriction for making derogatory statments about sources or their authors based on nationaility, place, publication or similar general characteristic. So, who is really a long time edit-warrior and displays disruptive behavior?

I, in the years of editing (less that Marshall has spent) have created 343 articles for various subjects including oil and gas fields, government bodies and institutions, food and drinks, TV shows and personalities, crime, terrorism related to Norway, United States, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Germany, Sweden, Russia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Angola, Romania, etc. It just happens that most of articles I created fall under category Azerbaijan which seemingly causes discontent for MarshallBagramyan who decided to get rid of me. I think the admininstrators of this board should take a thorough look at the evidence, including Marshall's long term wrongdoings and take adequate action. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am really not sure where exactly on the discussion page of the article Marshall sees me "excluding" authors based on ethnicity, as he tries to entrap me into enforcement? What I said was that while the data is conflicting (see on 1823 data from neutral authors and 1897 census of Russia), and while he discredits neutral authors who have no relative affiliation to Azerbaijan, the author of Armenian heritage is more likely to write in favor of Armenian side of the story than those unrelated to Azerbaijan authors in favor of Azerbaijani side. And this is all because Marshall tries to dismiss any reliable neutral source which does not support his claims. My full response on Marshall's misinterpretation is on the talk page of the article. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Tuscumbia

I'm pretty swamped in meatspace. Can someone else take a look at this?--Tznkai (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked User:Kermanshahi and User:Takabeg pursuant to edit warring requests. Not sure if that is relevant here.--Tznkai (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Tuscumbia

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

Link to the remedy you want enforced, not the case. It is a small thing, but it is you who should be doing these small things, instead of making an already difficult task that much more work.--Tznkai (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Spoiler

No action taken. Please make a new report for any new concerns. T. Canens (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Plot Spoiler

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TransporterMan (TALK) 19:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction

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

23:06, 8 October 2011 Initial revert
00:11, 9 October 2011 Second revert, 65 min later (violation)
00:32, 9 October 2011 Third revert, 21 min later (violation)

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

Warned on 6 Apr 2010 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Previously blocked on 06:03, 3 June 2010, for violation of this same sanction. Newcomer editor Public awareness (talk · contribs) may also need to be warned under ARBPIA as a result of this exchange.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notice to Plot Spoiler here.
Notice to Public awareness here

Discussion concerning Plot Spoiler

Statement by Plot Spoiler

Please note, the ARBPIA notice was added to the page after all these reverts had been made. I did not see the ARBPIA restrictions on the page and honestly forgot about that rule. I think this is a relatively minor content issue between Public Awareness that should be covered on the article's Talk: page. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, I now recognize that the article is subject to the 1RR policy and I will not be breaching it in the future. I apologize for mistakenly overlooking this policy and I hope Public Awareness will WP:assume good faith so we can actually resolve this minor content dispute. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now self-reverted my last edit from the article for the sake of 1RR. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why is this an WP:AE issue? Shouldn't have this been pursued at other boards first? My understanding is that AE is the last stop solution. Isn't this an abuse of that process? Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public awareness has been blocked as a sock of banned user Passionless. Can we close this already? Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Plot Spoiler

Comment Public awareness is on three reverts on the article in question, he is removing a quote which is sourced to the New York Times. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look more carefully. nableezy - 19:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed, have amended my statement. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop bickering

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment PA's removal of the perfectly sourced and relevant content is borderline vandalism and any reasonable editor, including myself, would have reverted the baseless removal. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That isnt true. Both of these users have blatantly violated the 1 revert rule. Not a single one of the reverts is an allowable exception to that rule. nableezy - 19:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What isn't true?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That the reverted edits are "borderline vandalism". That border is well-defined, and this is not that. nableezy - 20:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"borderline vandalism" is actually a liberal description of the removal of relevant sourced material with nonsensical/incoherent edit summaries.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, when an editor removes material with nonsensical summaries such as "better wording" or "dont see any footnotes, but referneces. reference 1 is foreign language article that appears to be an op-ed. unless its attribution is determined and noted, we will keep it simple" that is "borderline vandalism"? Or is it "borderline vandalism" when you, and you alone, makes the determination as to what edit summary is "nonsense"? Again, what vandalism is and is not is well-defined. The reverts listed here do not qualify for a vandalism exception as they were not reverting vandalism. nableezy - 20:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@brewcrewer, the exception to xRR is for "reverting obvious vandalism" (emphasis in original). If you have to resort to wikilawyering, Public awareness's edits weren't "obvious vandalism". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if any wikilawyering is necessary, its needed to explain this edit summary. "calling him a liar"? What? Who? Where? When?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change the subject. You're trying to excuse a 1RR violation by wikilawyering. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is whether reverting with nonsensical/incoherent edit summaries can be considered vandalism. I have yet to see any policy contradicting said position or any attempt at rationalizing the removals and edit summaries. Attacking me does not count.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You want a policy that contradicts "said position"? How about the policy that actually defines what vandalism is. See where it says Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism? nableezy - 18:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around the idea that the repeated removal of relevant sourced content without an edit summary would be considered vandalism, but once an incoherent/nonsensical edit summary is added it becomes kosher. I guess I'm not that good of a wikilawyer. Regardless, the whole issue appears to be moot because Plot Spoiler has apologized and self-reverted.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did at the time of the edit remember something about very limited editing reverts for Israeli articles, but than I saw that Nableezy, AndresHerutJaim (190.17.232.48), and Plot Spoiler all made several quick reverts, so I did make a second revert. The situation was bleak so I went to Fastily (my go to admin) for advice, which I took and went to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard for help. Vesal did agree with my edit on the talk page for the article, that the current form did "imply that the man is a hypocrite" though he did not agree it was a BLP violation. I'm sure to remember now that I can only revert once for Israeli articles, but, where should I go for help when it is instantly clear the other editor has no interest in listening to get outside help as my section at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard was closed for being "premature"? Public awareness (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article's Talk page is a good place to start. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me how I'm supposed to work constructively with Public awareness (PA) when s/he makes diffs like this: [21]? What PA is advocating has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, which relies on verifiability instead of truth. The WP:Soapboxing doesn't help either. In short, Public Awarness is holding the page hostage to his/her whim: "If the relevant policies are not changed, and the quote not removed, I will remove it myself next time I stop by." Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the outcome of this complaint, I recommend that Public awareness be given the ARBPIA notice. (Plot Spoiler has already received it.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Plot Spoiler: 1RR violations under ARBPIA may be brought to WP:ANEW or here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equally so? My understanding is that WP:ANEW is the preferred method. WP:AE is just a last resort. And look at all the unnecessary drama it has caused. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the template at WP:ARBPIA#Further remedies, "Reports of editors violating any of these restrictions should be made to either the Arbitration enforcement or Edit warring noticeboards." I agree with you that an AE complaint is more likely to attract drama. I've always made 1RR violation notices at ANEW. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may explain the confusion. One place or the other should be dealing with this, I dont really care which, but The Man should make up His mind. nableezy - 04:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public awareness has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Plot Spoiler

From the Vandalism policy page: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." (emphasis in original). There is no such thing as borderline vandalism. The malicious intent is either there or not. There is a borderline case for vandalism, where the proof is less clear.--Tznkai (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can leave this open for a few extra days to see if the revert warring continues, but I'm not currently inclined to take any action. T. Canens (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs2

Topic banned for six months. Ludwigs2, please see {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} if you wish to appeal

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Ludwigs2

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hipocrite (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions

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

Poisoning the talk page of an article (includes some personal attacks)

18:18, 7 October 2011 Poisoning the well - telling a "new" user that his opponents are baiting him, as opposed to attempting to get him to adhere to expected standards of behavior and normal editorial process.
22:48, 7 October 2011 Poisoning the well - comparing a group of editors he disagrees with to the KKK.
13:22, 11 October 2011 Poisoning the well - "This is - in my experience - typical of skeptical editors on fringe articles, who become collectively obsessed... So my advice is that all of you skeptics calm down and develop the body rather than fight like spitting cats..."
14:19, 11 October 2011 Defends the above.

Gross violation of NPA

13:26, 11 October 2011 "Stop being a troll..." on the talk page of an editor he is in a dispute with.

Edit warring

19:59, 10 October 2011 Bold edit. Possibly reverting something, but generally bold.
21:34, 10 October 2011‎ Reverts Dominus Vobisdu's revert of the bold edit
03:57, 11 October 2011 Reverts back to his preferred version from one being worked on by "new user" Givedarkkk and Dominus Vobisdu. His preferred version had previously been reverted by Skinwalker.

During this timeframe, Ludwigs2 made no edits to the talk page of the article. Only after his possibly third revert did he begin discussing on the talk page, as BRD requires

Problematic conduct after this filing

[22] Blames Dominus Vobisdu for reverting him, when it was actually FormerIP
[23] When this is pointed out, accuses DV and FI of "'tag team' crap" and calls them "irrational".
[24] Suggests that if editors don't like his "explaining and reexplaining and re-reexplaining the intellectual mistakes that other editors are indulging in" for a year (ital in orig), they "should retire from the page and allow me to edit it in peace."

Log of required notifications

Warned on 04:09, 22 September 2008 by Elonka (talk · contribs)
Blocked on 23:27, 8 March 2011 by Sandstein (talk · contribs), see also [25], Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[26]

Additional comment by filing party

Note that nowhere in Ludwig2's voluminous statements does he resolve to stop comparing people to the KKK, calling them trolls, and other gratuitously offensive behaviors, and stop revert warring. Instead, he attempts to blame the messenger. Hipocrite (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never referred to other editors as duped true believers - only poor sources like the Journal of Scientific Exploration. The page, aside from the "new" editors who were being dealt with was proceeding fine until Ludwigs2 polarized the environment. Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Ludwigs2

Statement by Ludwigs2

I'm not sure what the purpose of this filing is, but allow me to note a few seemingly obvious things:

for the required notifications section, Hypocrite lists:

a three year old warning from a different article that was over a conflict with an editor (ScienceApologist) who has since been banned from the project for sockpuppetry, harassment, and worse against fringe articles.
a block by an admin with a strong anti-fringe POV (Sandstien) which was so problematic that it spawned an entire ArbCom case of its own.

This is not a promising beginning to an enforcement request.

To his specific claims, I can make a few general statements:

Pointing a new editor (SLP, who had at that time a total of 35 edits to his name) to wp:BITE and wp:BAIT and advising him that he should remain calm and cool, edit slowly, and diversify to other articles is hardly improper behavior. Fringe articles have a long history of problematic behavior from both fringe editors and skeptical editors (see my above notes about ScienceApologist and Sandstein); the advice was sound as a general rule. It is unfortunate that hypocrite took offense to it. but…
the other diffs that Hypocrite provided all seem to be objections to statements I made highlighting problematic behavior of skeptical editors (to wit, the tendency of some skeptical editors to revert article changes without discussion in talk, the deeply entrenched battleground attitude many skeptical editors adopt on fringe articles, and the general strong-arm tactics some habitually use to defend POV edits). These issues are valid article development concerns, they have been regularly discussed in multiple places and are well-known issues on project, and my comments were not personal in nature. In fact, I'm convinced that I have been impeccably and thoroughly reasonable on the page to date (though I seem to get nothing except grief for that).

Further, allow me to point out that - while I could have perhaps phrased these things somewhat better - my behavior on this page is a vast improvement over places where I have truly lost my temper. You should be pleased that I have improved my temper as significantly as I have, and take it as a positive sign. I'm not perfect, and my actions are not always going to be perfect; but by that token, Hypocrite is not perfect either: note that his sole activity on the article has been to revert substantive changes, usually without talk page discussion, and that his talk page use has been limited to things like:

calling a source a 'transparent fraud' [27]
trying to confuse a newbie editor by making bizarre claims about his reverts not being major changes while substantive changes made by others are somehow reverts (I can't quite follow his twists, but he is obviously trying to place blame on the newcomer for something a newcomer could not be expected to understand) [28], [29]
casting an entire side of the debate as 'duped true-believers' [30]
accusing me of a personal attack for suggesting people should discuss things in talk rather than edit war in the article [31]

This is, in fact, precisely the kind of behavior I have suggested is typical of certain skeptical editors, suggestions that Hypocrite is complaining about. I think that qualifies as multi-dimensional irony.

As I have said, I have been being impeccably and thoroughly neutral and reasonable on the page - not perfect, no, but still impeccably and thoroughly so. I am making no headway, however, because editors like Hypocrite have made it clear that they are intent on poisoning the page so that putative 'advocates', 'apologists', 'true-believers' (or etc) cannot edit it. Kwami stated that fairly directly: "And then, of course, if they get that, they'll push for a little more, and a little more, all in the name of ~~Truth~~ fairness. […] It's a matter of heading off attempts by apologists to..." [32], and Dominus, Hypocrite and others have made similar assertions. In fact, I suspect that this case was opened in the hopes that I would get in trouble so that they would not have to deal with rational discussion on the article any longer, because their positions are not supported by any form of rational discourse (such aggressively skeptical positions only work in an atmosphere where a kneejerk reaction against rabid advocacy can be induced; rationality gets in the way because it fosters moderate attitudes). I am doing the correct thing in the face of a nearly intractable bias, and (excluding an occasional slip or moment of pique) I stand by my actions. What's really under discussion here, I think, is whether neutrality and rationality should be allowed to have any sway on fringe articles. I can only assume that we would want that to be the case, to which end this whole thing should be summarily dismissed. --Ludwigs2 06:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

response to Hypocrite: I did not suggest that you referred to editors as 'duped true believers'; I suggested that your use of such terms is divisive, combative, and geared towards the repression of disliked viewpoints rather than any form of collaborative editing.
With respect to your other point: It is your opinion that the 'correct' way to deal with new editors is to blanket-revert every change they make and refuse to explain yourself or walk them through wikipedia procedures in talk? I don't care how problematic you think the edits are, that is no way to deal with newbs. And yes, I recognize that you've put the word 'new' in scare-quotes, indicating your belief that this is not a new editor but rather a reincarnation of some old, troublesome editor. That is a bad-faith assumption in the first place, and troubling in its implication that you believe that kind of combative, uncommunicative behavior is a normal and acceptable way of dealing with experienced editors. Doubly troubling, in fact, because I'd blindly accepted that implication myself until I'd had a chance to think about it a while. That is not supposed to be normal, acceptable behavior on project, and I am sad that we have reached the stage where we all casually accept it as such. --Ludwigs2 14:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

response to KillerChihuahua

You've missed the point on my first comments. I was not trying to suggest that I was not notified (I am well aware of wikipedia policies, having been deeply involved in re-crafting several of them). I was trying to point out that I have been subject to a continuous bias on project, practically since day 1. As I said, I am impeccably neutral with respect to content - I defy you to find any content point I made on the Astrology page (or anywhere else on project, ever) that qualifies as biased, as un-neutral, or as advocacy of any sort. Some of my perspectives on life are (shall we say) complex, and that makes communication difficult sometimes, but I never defend a position I cannot justify through reason.

Pointing out that Sandstein made a tremendously bad block against me in defense of a problematic skeptical editor is not a personal attack against him; it's an indication of a bias on project. Pointing out that skeptical editors like ScienceApologist can literally go years indulging in gross violations of wikipedia policy while I get sanctioned if I so much as look cross-eyed at a skeptical editor is not blaming the victim, it's an indication of a bias on project. I can point to at least a dozen cases where some editor making silly, combative, and unsupportable edits against fringe topics tried to manipulate policy to get me sanctioned (I can only think of one case where an editor making silly, combative, and unsupportable edits in favor of fringe topics tried to do the same). I mean, look at the current dispute on the Astrology talk page: I point out that phrases like "The scientific community dismisses astrology" merely weasel-word an abstract entity (the 'scientific community') into existence, anthropomorphize it as having feelings, and then use those entirely problematic moves to create content which is unsourceable, unsupportable, and biased. The rational (collaborative) move would be for other editors to acknowledge that the statement is a bit extreme and tone it back a notch (not that much, just a notch, to what's supportable in sources). The actual behavior - here, and on every fringe article I've ever worked on - is that a half-dozen editors descend on the page to revert all changes, ignore the talk page or turn it into a quagmire of circular reasoning, and accuse me of policy violations for any trivial thing they can think of. That kinda sucks, no? Not what I expect of people purportedly defending the interests of science and rationality.

You don't like my attitude - I don't my attitude sometimes either - but my attitude is a product of trying to reason with people who do not want to be reasonable and are willing to use force to avoid it. if you have the interests of the project at heart, you will do something to change that dynamic, rather than try to force me to abide by it. --Ludwigs2 16:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

response to B.C: B.C., I have said I will be more civil and cooperative, and more to the point I think that an honest evaluation of the talk page shows that I have in fact been civil and cooperative for the most part. I'll even say it again: my intention is to be civil and cooperative on the page. What we have here is a microcosm where all of my mistakes are displayed side-by-side and portrayed in the worst possible light, and there's not much I can do about that if people do not want to look farther. C'est la vie
The real problem here is that I am objectively right but socially maladroit. If I were not objectively right I'd have gotten in far more serious trouble a long time ago; if I were not socially maladroit I'd be an admin. It's a problem for me and for everyone, I realize, but all I can do is do what I think is right as best I can, and doubtless that will not satisfy everyone. --Ludwigs2 18:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise resolution

Because this whole this is not worth fighting out, allow me to offer a compromise, as follows:

I will make a determined effort and refrain from voicing what other people consider to be 'poisoning the well' type statements (since that seems to be the main concern here). I ask only two caveats:

That I be allowed to refer to skeptical editors as a cultural group in a non-judgemental way (the same way comments might be delicately voiced about editors of particular religious or ethnic groups). This is important on the pages I frequent because skepticism represents a distinct demographic with its own particular worldview that should be balanced against other worldviews.
That I be given the opportunity to refactor individual comments that slip through (this to handle the fact that I may not realize a particular comment will be considered poisoning the well when I write it). A note on my talk page with a diff should be sufficient to get me to reword things; I certainly won't argue with it.

obviously, any abuses of these caveats could be brought up for discussion here; that won't happen, but I realize the need for spelling out the detail.

This, I think, should satisfy all the valid concerns on this page. Would it be acceptable? --Ludwigs2 20:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Ludwigs2

Over the last two weeks, a group of new editors including Hipocrite have taken over the Astrology page and made sweeping unilateral edits to purge what their leading editor, Dominus Vobisdu describes as “fraudulent bullshit”. They have removed well cited material with scant reference to the Talk page and without consensus in order to push a fundamentalist sceptical POV. Any alternative edits have been quashed by force of numbers rather than force of reason. This request is an attempt to censor one of the few editors, Ludwigs2 who is engaging in civil debate on the talk page and contributing towards an impartial point of view. Robert Currey talk 22:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above in general. I'm not a frequent editor on the Astrology page but Robertcurrey sums up recent developments well. During the past week I have found that a number of editors (including Hipocrite who has initiated this request) have made drastic changes to the page without discussion and against previous consensus. There are those such as Robertcurrey that represent the astrology side of the argument but it seems they are presently outnumbered by a group of editors pushing the pseudoscience agenda, trying to discredit astrology every chance they get (little do they know that, without thousands of years of astrology cultivated by top minds throughout history, there wouldn't be any science to talk about today). A refreshing new face is Ludwigs2, who in my mind represents a very sober middle ground. He/she seems well educated, balanced and writes succinctly. It is a shame that an action such as this one can be initiated by editors who are red-handed in their own POV pushing, blatantly edit-warring, ignoring the Talk page, removing well-sourced and balanced material, etc, etc. If anything, Hipocrite and his/her group should be questioned on their uninformed and destructive actions (both on the Astrology page itself and various political maneuvering on the side). SLP (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs, you could avoid all this by just saying you'll be civil and more collaborative. Why don't you just do it? You were going to come back and act like an admin. B^e——C_ritical 17:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Collect

Ludwigs2 is a passionate editor. He does however have a strong bent for incivility towards others, which well ought to be curbed. The diffs show part of this, but it is a general problem which he has, at times, acknowledged. It is likely that any admin will not impose the strongest discretionary sanctions, but clearly a minimal one may not be efficaceous. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this. B^e——C_ritical 01:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by mostly uninvolved A Quest For Knowledge

I am mostly uninvolved in this dispute. IIRC, I have never edited this article. I only made one small suggestion on the article talk page[33] and my change was implemented by another editor.[34] Ludwigs2 made a comment to me that was a tad bit too aggressive and I started a discussion on his talk page. I would like to continue that discussion with him.
Hipocrite posted some diffs and it's obvious that Ludwigs2 needs to tone down the language a bit, but there is also much wisdom in what he says. Sceptical editors on fringe topics who go overboard and ram the debunking down the reader's throat is a real problem on Wikipedia. It makes Wikipedia look silly and unprofessional. Whether this is a problem on this particular article, I cannot say. Like I said, I have never edited the article and only made a suggestion on the talk page.
So granted, my experience in regards to this article is limited, but I don't think that arbitration enforcement is necessary at this point. I would like to continue my dialog with Ludwigs2 in the hopes that it will be fruitful. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

I have no real interest in Astrology other than occasionally glancing at the newspaper horoscopes and dipped into article for just a week or so (around late September - early October) after seeing it mentioned on a noticeboard or something. It was an eye-opening experience. There is a continual tension between a group of professional astrologers (such as User:Robertcurrey above, i.e., Robert Currey) and other advocates on the one hand, and more science-oriented ("skeptical") editors on the other.

The article also is subject to ongoing external canvassing, including this plea on User:Robertcurrey's web site with helpful instructions on how to avoid looking too obvious. The result is a trickle of new (or maybe not) accounts who immediately bluelink their user and talk pages, make a few random edits, then become essentially WP:SPAs. Despite all this, there was constructive movement on the article and a more-or-less civil atmosphere overlying the tension. Ludwigs2 then arrived on the scene to pour butane on troubled waters, with cheerful remarks comparing science-oriented editors to the KKK and such. Amusing in its way but at that point I decided to bow out. I leave it to the wisdom of those enforcing the sanctions to decide what to do; it's of little consequence to me, as I think editing the article just isn't worth the hassle. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this and with Collect and AQFK. I was expecting to work with Dominis and with Ludwigs, hope we can refocus the discussion towards content and away from behaviour. One of the SPAs has systematically reverted every edit I have made. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on response from Ludwigs2 The overall impression I get from the response is "it's OK for me to fling gratuitous insults at whoever I like, even while this enforcement request is open,[35] because I'm smarter than all of you and I'm right." That his response accuses others of a "battleground attitude" shows a mind-blowing lack of self awareness, and does not bode well for any possibility of moderating his behavior. No one is asking that he "kiss science troll ass" as he puts it, just that he refrain from being so willfully obnoxious. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Zachariel

I have made some discussion and some light edits on the main Astrology page today, and have been heavily involved in the page in the past – but not, I believe, in the period that Ludwig2 has been active in the subject. Nor do I know him/her; and don’t believe I’ve had any involvement with this editor in the past.

I have read through the discussion page today and seen the offending comments in context. In context, I cannot see how Ludwig2 can be accused of poisoning the well of an article that is suffering from such blatant edit-warring and polarised editing. Those who have criticised him(?) of bold editing without discussion have done the same. He has been outspoken in calling the situation as it is, but no more uncivil than several of those who are criticising him here (it seems just as bad to me, if not worse, to lump editors into presumed camps and leave indirect insults and implied accusations which generate sinister assumptions and create the divisive conditions that Ludwig2 has commented on).

Ludwig2 does not appear to want to promote or rubbish the subject; he is arguing in favour of objective content that eliminates emotive bias and personal agendas. In this respect, his input is very valuable. He does come across as an editor who has seen such problems surface before and is intolerant towards them. Viewed as diffs his comments raise eyebrows, but given the overall tone of the general discussion going on, to me they just seem direct instead of barbed with sarcasm or portraying hostility as an undertone, as many other comments do. (It's there, just the same, but you have to smell it rather than read it). All of the editors who have edit-warred and changed the content significantly should be warned about their violation of the page policy which asks them to remember that the subject is controversial and that substantial changes need to be discussed on the talk-page before introduced into the article. Ludwig2 should be encouraged to collaborate more but so should others. It would be wrong to single this editor out for criticism that applies to many editors working on that page at this time, including those who are bringing their complaints against him here. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hippocrite, the procedures explain that those who bring requests for enforcement should be careful not to come with ‘unclean hands’. Ludwig2 has a right to defend himself, especially since this request for enforcement seems to be based on little more than dramatic over-reaction to a few outspoken comments deriving from a content dispute that you, the proposer, are involved in. Enforcement is not supposed to be about content disputes, and arbitration requests should be the last stop in dispute resolution. Ludwig2 has engaged fully in the talk-page discussions on a very controversial subject and it’s easy to mine quotes from all participants that could be condemned as inflammatory. What responsibility are you taking upon yourself? Have you resolved to cease offensive remarks, such as referring to editors with knowledge of the subject as “duped true-believers”, and your provocative references to “transparent fraud”, etc? From what I can see this request was brought here without due cause. Like Ludwig2 I am concerned that it was not brought because of his provocative remarks, but because of his willingness to persist in rational arguments in spite of intolerance towards those arguments.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Olive

I became interested in watching this discussion from the sidelines and have also made a couple of copy edits to the article. I have a very little, basic knowledge of astrology, and no desire to become involved in a contentious topic area. Ludwigs on this article has shown himself to be an assertive editor with the intelligence and skill to wade through the log jams that can result when editors are driven by POV s rather than being aware of a more neutral middle ground which Ludwigs and a few other editors like BeCritical seem to be. Being assertive and being straightforward when arguing for NPOV should not be confused with incivility especially when an editor clearly offers to redact any comments which may have offended other editors as here. And with out assertion what I've seen on contentious articles are endless rounds of discussion which go nowhere.

the KKK diff seems to be to a general comment rather than a specific reference to any editors.(olive (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment by Count Iblis

The full Moon may be to blame. Count Iblis (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved

Analysis of report and response

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Some specific comments regarding the filing and the responses.

Poisoning the well:

Yes, Ludwigs ends with some "be calm" advice, but the bulk of the post is indeed poisoning the well, and that quite thoroughly.
The KKK reference is clearly meant to be an analogy to illustrate how difficult it can be to edit Pseudoscience article from a non-critical POV. This is not poisoning the well.
Like #1, only with the balance reversed. The bulk of the post is constructive, but poisoned by the introductory paragraph, which denigrates the other editors.
Argumentative. Hostile. Accusatory. I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it poisoning the well, but parts were somewhat uncivil. Calling reverting BOLD edits "trolling" is confusing, at best; a NPA violation at worst.

The edit warring and problematic behavior is also well grounded.

Regarding Ludwig's response:

Notifications are to show the editor is aware of the ArbCom sanctions. There is no half-life for such notification. This is not the 3RR noticeboard.
Attacking Sandstein does not change that you have been notified. This is a battlefield mentality type response, and harms rather than helps your case, Ludwigs.

Ludwigs "general statements" do not acknowledge any room for improvement; indeed, he blames the victim by his dismissive attitude (ex:"It is unfortunate that hypocrite took offense to it. but..."

KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Ludwigs' lengthy response[36] to this: So basically, boiled down and paraphrased:You're always neutral, they're a cabal, your (Ludwig's) attitude is their fault, and if I(KC) really care about Wikipedia, I'll change the entire dynamic of the site so they don't incite you. No, I disagree. I also do not see any serious attempt to be self-critical or improve. Leaning towards making the topic ban 6 months, not 1. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: It does not matter if Sandstein's block was immediately and soundly rejected by every admin who ever was, and was overturned in .05 nanoseconds; its still you finding out (being, as it were, "notified") about the ArbCom case. Cease this fruitless line of misdirection. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As this seems to have provoked some misunderstanding, at least from one editor: This is due to a continued battleground mentality, blaming others and IDHT rather than any sign the editor in question recognizes his shortcomings and is interested in improving. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Ludwigs2

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

I'd like to hear from Ludwigs2 first before taking any action on this complaint. T. Canens (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a day and a half since this was filed (more?) and Ludwigs has essentially only edited Astrology-related pages since then. I suggest that admins go ahead and take whatever actions they deem necessary; if Ludwigs doesn't feel the need to comment, that's his business. NW (Talk) 04:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a month long break from all Astrology articles, to give Ludwigs time to think this over and hopefully come back with a more productive attitude, especially regarding his tendency to poison the well regarding his fellow editors. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
changing to 6 month topic ban, due to IDHT and continued battleground behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if another uninvolved Admin would comment, pro or con. thoughts? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Within discretion, at the bare minimum. Since action has been taken, I am going to close this. Ludwigs2 can appeal in the standard fashion if he wishes. NW (Talk) 12:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atabəy

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

Request concerning Atabəy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Atabəy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [remedies]

I am asking for permanent ban of Atabəy (talk · contribs) on Armenia/Iran related topics (and those of Armenia/Iran that overlap with any other topic). Note Atabəy (talk · contribs) had the previous name Atabek (talk · contribs) and has been in two arbcomms, as well as banned permanently from some topic. [remedies]

I would like to bring to attention my attempt to get a third party viewpoint on the discussion in Anti-Turkism as well as the discussion page in Anti-Turkism.

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

[37] violates WP:NPA WP:NOTBATTLE on two users, specially this quote attacking a third party mediator (not from the region but an expert on history) who gave his opinion. Atabey states: "@Folantin, instead of pandering to Khodabandeh14's nationalist WP:POV and attempting to insult me". So a 3rd party user is accused of "pandering to my nationalist POV"!
[38] WP:SOAPBOX " I personally don't see how Hitler blaming Jews for troubles of Germany in Mein Kampf is different from Ferdowsi demonizing Turanians/Turks vs Persian pride in Shahnameh. One may look more ancient than the other, and no action would have been taken after Shahnameh, simply because Turks ruled Iran at the time. But it does not change the essence of intolerance" (user is equating a mythological book about mythical battles with Hitler/Mein Kemp which is WP:SOAPBOX] and inflammatory).
[39] violates WP:ATTACK by first bolding the word you and then threatening the user to spend some time in Arbcomm. "So unless, you, Folantin, (not Khodabandeh with another WP:FORUM) can provide a sensible response to opinions of other authors about Shahnameh being essentially anti-Turkish "bible" of Persian nationalism, you should not be using LOLs, Oh Wells, or worse, calling me a fool. Moreover, if Khodabandeh14 uses your one-sided opinions in formulating an opinion in talk pages, then you should probably spend some time as a party to ArbCom case he is currently pursuing to open - that is taking a position in a handful of edit conflicts that he is involved with pushing POV. ". Clear violations of WP:NPA and WP:NOTBATTLE.
[40] "It is impossible to conclude that in a country which takes pride of Shahnameh, and where expression "Tork-e khar" (Turkish donkey) is a popular way of insulting ethnic Turks, there is no Turcophobia whatsoever" WP:SOAP, and WP:NOTBATTLE.
[41] "What is more relevant to this article, is that using the word Turk, Ferdowsi anachronisticially attributed to them an image of alien, an enemy. That is a reason why, compounded with numerous Turkic invasions, a deep sense of anti-Turkism is inherited over centuries in Persian-speaking society" violates WP:SOAP, and WP:NOTBATTLE. (Note the second part: "That is a reason why..." is not in a source and is a WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTBATTLE violation which is not any source. Basically that is like accusing all blacks to be anti-white or all whites to be anti-black...also not related to the topic at all).
[42] " Iam just drawing comparison that by essence of anti-Turkish intolerance that Shahnameh has incited (which is obvious in ongoing edit conflicts of Khodabandeh14 on Turkey-Azerbaijan-Iran related topics), it was not far from Mein Kampf inciting anti-Semitism. You may consider my view in context of Goodwin's law, and I will consider your inability to respond in detail to references above to lack of time or interest. Hence, Khodabandeh14 simply cannot use your view as a conclusive third party opinion on Anti-Turkism. " (note the user is stating that I am pursuing "anti-Turkish intolerance" which is again violation of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BATTLE. He has accused other users priorly of this charge and was one of the reasons he got sanctioned last time. For example his accusation on Kansas Bear with the charge of Turcophobia:[43])
[44] I'll bring what a third party user said about the POV pushing. Folantin responding to Atabek's belittling WP:BATTLE/WP:SOAPBOX comment that "is Khodabandeh14 your Spokesperson"?. Folantin (responding to Atabek's accusation) wrote: "is Khodabandeh14 your spokesperson?" Khodabandeh has made some sensible, evidence-based comments about Ferdowsi. You have compared Ferdowsi to Hitler.. Who is responsible for your coming across as a fool here, him or you? Now if you don't mind I'm off to add Geoffrey of Monmouth to the Anglophobia article. His stories about King Arthur's resistance to the Anglo-Saxon invasion are dreadfully biased against my ancestors. Let's ignore the fact the English later adopted Arthur as one of their own, it doesn't disguise the innate racism and Celtic supremacism of Merlin and his bigoted ilk. There is no difference between The History of the Kings of Britain and Mein Kampf. -"" .. (the last three sentences are obviously sarcastic because of the bad POV atmosphere created by Atabek. Thus we can completely see that a 3rd neutral party expert sees clear POV pushing. Consequently my attempt to seek 3rd party mediation failed because of the POV pushing and WP:NOTBATTLE/WP:SOAPBOX comments).

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

Atabəy (talk · contribs) had the previous name Atabek (talk · contribs) and has been in two arbcomms, as well as banned permanently from some topic. [remedies]. The most recent sanction whose full report can be found here: [45] was in May 2011. The result was: "Atabəy (talk · contribs) is banned from Iranian topics including the Safavids for three months and is under an indefinite restriction to 1RR/week per the result of a thread at WP:AE. Notified. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)"[[46]] Saygi1 (talk · contribs) is notified: [47] --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It would be good if EdJohnston looks at this case as he was the one that enforced the last sanction. He is familiar with my edits, Atabey's edit and Folantin's helpful comment as a 3rd party mediator.

I tried to make Arbcomm aware that the problem is POV battle pushing [48] which needs a mechanism like Russian wikipedia. If such a mechanism is not enforced, then I will quit. However, before quitting, I should note what made me propose such mechanism is exactly such users. I have wasted archives after archives with such users and it was a great waste of time. English wikipedia is too inept to unfortunately handle problematic articles in one day. So I decided to seek third party dispute resolution. I sought third party comments from two admins who are familiar with the classical history of the area and are known for the objectivity. However, the discussion ended with the admin concluding: "No, I'm done here. By comparing The Shahnameh and Mein Kampf and thus resorting to reductio ad Hitlerum, Atabey has violated Godwin's law and the discussion is therefore over. "[49]. This is a result of WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NPA and WP:NOBATTLE. So even though the Arbcomm case is likely not approved (because they claim that other methods exists which does not), I tried third party dispute resolution, and instead the comments above popped out. I might have made some comments myself outside the discussion, but this has to do with past experience and evidence I sent to arbcomm. All the above are violations of fundamental policies. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said the admin EdJohnston is very familiar with this user and the case. So this report was made due to the fact that he emposed the previous section. At one point in his talkpage, he was about to give a permanent ban to Atabek for WP:NOTBATTLE comments and not cooperating with a 3rd party. This time, he did not cooperate at all with two 3rd party admins. He was the one gave the last sanction to Atabek in May (banned for 3 months on all Iran related topics). My record is clean and I have not had any prior AA warnings. I also can answer all the chargers below:

Charge 1 of Atabek is baseless as I am trying to get opinions for an Arbcomm on a proposal from users who are experiencing nationalistic bickering and also admins who had to constantly deal with the issue. It is not canvassing for votes, but rather to get feedback on a proposal.
Charge 2 is a report to EdJohnston on his page, but EdJohnston as usual would want a formal request. This is all it is. No violation of wikipedia rule.
Charge 3 Dbachmman/Folantin actually left the discussion after Atabek's comment not mine. They never made any negative comments about my messages, but they made several on Atabek['s comments.
Charge 4 is a copy & paste from an open site. I copied & paste some messages from that open site and by mistake a name popped out. The next message I delete the name (2 minutes later). The message can be deleted for good as it was a copy & paste mistake. I just wanted to demonstrate that there is actual racism going on the off-line wikipedia lists and user should not be preaching to Dbachmann. I believe the user brought the Hitler, Nazis, Mein Kemp, Skinhead and etc. into unrelated discussion due to Dbachmann's Germany ancestory. As far as I know that evidence I sent to Arbcomm was accepted by Arbcomm never took action. As noted in Russian wikipedia such a list was used to ban 30 people. But admins can always delete any message that they properly deem violates any privacy concern as I try to follow that rule to the best of my knowledge (when I deleted a name 2 minutes after). I have had no prior violations.
I should note that I am not a party in AA1 or AA2, and only had one violation in my whole editing history which was overtuned quickly. This cannot compare to a user who had multiple AA1/AA2 violations and none of my comments demonstrate WP:BATTLE as I initiated the feedback from Dbachmman and Folantin (who firmly rejected the POV push of the user).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [50] (user notified)

@Tznkai, thanks for the proposal but also I would like to get the feedback of EdJohnston who is familiar with the case. I have no prior topic bans, AA warnings or etc. The user on the other hand was topic banned recently. Admins need to go through the comments carefully. I asked for 3rd party feedback and the third party was attacked by: ""@Folantin, instead of pandering to Khodabandeh14's nationalist WP:POV ". Basically, the admins need to reread the discussion that took place. As I said, EdJohnston is very familiar with this case and he handed out a 3 month ban on Atabek in late May 2011. So I really want to hear his feedback on this issue as well. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note that there is more bad accusations here. Atabek claims I reverted him here: [51] which is a bad faith accusation, since he was banned from that article for POV pushing. That is right, he was topic banned from that specific article for POV pushing (see the discussion there where he uses a 1909 popular source to push POV against all evidence). In that page, he pushed "Two sources from 1905 and 1913" while ignoring all modern sources. I think if admins look at that 2008 edits (for he was topic banned from that article) and compare to his modern edits, there is no improvement as it is all about pushing a sort of ethnic agenda. But my edit had nothing to with Atabek, rather I added sources to the article and looked at the talkpage. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to recall the previous AE sanction case which I filed against Atabek [52]. What makes the admins think that a 6 month ban is sufficient? I have a clean record and I was not involved in AA1/AA2 topics. I asked for mediation and instead the user brought up hitler, mein kemp and accused the 3rd party neutral user of ""@Folantin, instead of pandering to Khodabandeh14's nationalist WP:POV ". I do really believe sanctions are needed here, and although I could not see any mistakes by myself, I do see huge violations of WP:NPA and WP:NOTBATTLE from Atabek. Specifically, when he gets into a disagreement, he has several time accused users of anti-Turkism or what not. Simply the atmosphere created by the user is not conducive to wikipedia. How many chances do users get? Just note he did not listen a 3rd party mediator here (Gareth) here either: [53][54]. Just one quote: " I still fail to see why Tigran is pushing Armenian POV, when Abgar had nothing to do with Armenia. Tiridates acceptance of Christianity in Armenia was also a legend, so there is no reason why one legend is more important than the other, while several authors confirm the fact of Abgar VIII's acceptance of Christianity by 201. I am ready to present more references to my edit, than dozens already presented in my version. But the information is already out, and it won't be possible to hide facts by historical fabrications, POV pushing/edit warring this time.". You might ask why would a user be interested in such a rare topic? It is because he does not want Armenia to be known as the first Christian state (something generally agreed upon by scholarship today). This goes back to the third century A.D., and the user simply is fighting now battles about 3rd century A.D. and 10th century A.D. (Shahnama). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the RfC of Atabek in bad faith as already two neutral users gave their opinion. But I am not going to let the user have a one-sided viewpoint there.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like the sanctions to apply to User:Sayig1 here: [55] --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Atabəy

Statement by Atabəy

This frivolous reporting by User:Khodabandeh14 (previously known as User:Nepaheshgar and User:Ali doostzadeh) follows his consecutive WP:CANVASS attempts targeting me:

1. Attempt to bait several contributors, including myself, into another ArbCom case, which is currently being declined; obviously wasting community resources while not exploring other paths towards consensus. This also includes Khodabandeh14's WP:BATTLE and WP:CANVASS attempt to engage User:MarshallBagramyan - [56], User:Takabeg - [57], User:Folantin - [58], User:EdJohnston - [59], User:Lezgistxa - [60], User:Sandstein - [61], User:Vacio - [62], User:Kansas Bear - [63] in an ArbCom case against a group of users with which Khodabandeh14 disagrees.

2. Frivolous reporting to User_talk:EdJohnston, who did not comment on the case.

3. Massive WP:FORUM staged by Khodabandeh14 at User_talk:Dbachmann, not letting other users to speak for themselves, and acting as their spokesperson. Interested arbitrators can follow this thread on Dbachmann's page, to carefully review the rhetoric of Khodabandeh14 and myself.

4. WP:HARASSMENT violation attempting to link me to a real-life identity, using some controversial spam site which published someone's private email online.

At Talk:Anti-Turkism, Talk:Flag of South Azerbaijan and Talk:Azerbaijani people, User:Khodabandeh14 exhibits extremely disruptive WP:BATTLE behavior, refusing to come to any consensus, acting WP:OWN, pushing WP:POV, using WP:PEACOCK wording towards any author he disagrees with, WP:SOAP labeling them as nationalists. Just look at his admission: "I believe the third parties gave a sufficient response. That is why exactly this went to enforcement". This implies that he is using Arbitration Enforcement as a way to intimidate contributor with a threat of sanctions, in order to push his WP:POV in an article.

Assuming good faith, in an attempt to achieve consensus with him, I made a proposal at Talk:Anti-Turkism. But Khodabandeh14 is clearly dismissing any source that he disagrees with, focusing only on his WP:POV or else, the objective to get me sanctioned.

In his prior WP:HARASSMENT, few months ago, User:Khodabandeh14 succeeded by having User:EdJohnston temporarily restrict me from editing pages like Safavid dynasty. Despite EdJohnston's promise to lift this restriction on certain conditions that he suggested, after my appeal and my fulfillment of those conditions, the restriction was forgotten and not lifted, and I did not have time then to follow through the case. But it is obvious that instead of working on articles, and emboldened by such support, User:Khodabandeh14 is now targeting contributors.

I ask AE to remind User:Khodabandeh14 to be more patient and WP:AGF, to constructively participate in talk page discussions, and to leave my identity alone, simply because it is irrelevant to the topics of pages that we edit. I am also expecting AE action in regards to the item 4, which is a severe violation. I mean why is Khodabandeh14 is allowed to go around freely alleging my real-life name? Is this something acceptable in Wikipedia? And I am completely disappointed as to why, being actively involved in all WP:AA2 edit conflicts, User:Khodabandeh14 remains free of any arbitration enforcement and is even allowed to harass contributors?!

P.S. Just an example in item 5 of Khodabandeh14's frivolous reporting, the words I used and he claims as WP:SOAP, come from a scholarly source here: "Turan of the Shahnama are not the historic Turks with which Firdausi anachronistically equates them "

Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Tznkai, completely agree. I am sorry for having to waste my time here, but I wasn't the one who opened this case, so I have no other option but to respond. I already made a good faith proposal, but unfortunately instead of discussing, Khodabandeh14 still wants to pursue other objectives. Atabəy (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request adding User:Kurdo777 to the sanctions. Thanks.Atabəy (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For information of Arbitration Enforcement, at my request at WP:Oversight purged out comments by KHodabandeh14, attempting to link me to a person in violation of WP:HARASSMENT. I kindly ask AE to take actions to prevent repeated violations of the policy by User:Khodabandeh14. The topic disagreements can be resolved on talk pages of the articles, via RfCs, and other currently pursued methods. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the bad faith comments by User:Khoikhoi about myself. Back in January 2008, he endorsed an unfounded allegation that User:Ehud Lesar was a sockpuppet of User:AdilBaguirov, based on claims made up by a group of WP:BATTLE editors. The allegations were found to be untrue. This one ArbCom case, however, demonstrated the issues with neutrality of User:Khoikhoi when it comes to WP:AA2 cases. So, I suggest that before accusing me in bad faith, in traditional support of User:Khodabandeh14, he produces some facts as to what have I violated to be the subject of this current AE report? Atabəy (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about AE decision

@Tznkai, and other supporting administrators, your decision below raises the following question:

Will there be any action taken about WP:HARASSMENT violation by User:Khodabandeh14 or I should take that to a different board? Is this rule enforced by WP:AE?
In May 2011, following my topic ban from Iran-related articles after frivolous report by Khodabandeh14, I was suggested by User:EdJohnston to open an RfC and to follow through with achieving consensus on Talk:Safavid dynasty. I did so, but the ban was not lifted. Can I know the reason?
If I am asked to create a Good Article, but at the same time banned from editing articles, how can do so?

Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, as a last resort, in good faith, I initiated a Request for Comment on Talk:Anti-Turkism regarding the disputed subject. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Atabəy

Does this read to anyone else as "You-suck!-No-you-suck!"--Tznkai (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Put them both on chairs in the corner for time out? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Atabəy

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

Directed at both Atabəy and User:Khodabandeh14, based primarily on your behavior here, and a brief perusal of your contributions, it seems that your sole activities on Wikipedia are getting into ideological editing struggles over what I will loosely call Western Asia/Eastern European nationalism and the bloody history thereof, and then getting into personal fights via our dispute resolution mechanisms. This is the very definition of abusing Wikipedia as a battleground. I suppose I could waste all of our times making a more detailed and nuanced assessment and apportion blame in a precise manner, but I do not see benefits outweighing the costs.

Both Atabəy and User:Khodabandeh14 are:

topic banned from all edits in article and article talk space concerning the topic of Eastern European or West Asian nationalism, which includes but is not limited to any nation, ethnicity, people, state, region, person, ideology, entity, work of art, origin of food items, or historical event in Eastern Europe, Northern and Central Asia Division, East Central and South-East Europe Division, Western Asia regions as defined by the United Nations; and
are so banned for six months, starting October 16 00:00 UTC; and
a ban will be suspended upon proof to either myself, a consensus of administrators on AE or a neutral process such as Good Articles, that you can write in a collaborative manner and produce by improvement, well written and well sourced articles

If either of you, or anyone else, in your attempts to get the good behavior suspension disrupts previously stable forums, I will move onto blocks. You have until the ban starts to make further comments, or point me at other editors whose behavior also justifies being included in the topic ban as described above. You may also consider an appeal, and as always, my fellow administrators are encouraged to comment as well.--Tznkai (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khodabandeh14, this is not a proposal, its a sanction. I would also welcome EdJohnston's comments. You might want to get his attention quicklike.--Tznkai (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atabəy, we are not arbitrators, but administrators. You can always go over our heads to the Arbitration Committee if you wish. Second, your behavior in this enforcement request is an independently sufficient ground to show you are violating editing norms. It is your actions, and choices that I am acting on.--Tznkai (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start with and pick an article that doesn't fall within the topic ban.--Tznkai (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khodabandeh14, please notify user:Saygi1 and post the notification here.--Tznkai (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Tzn; good call. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sanction on both editors which Tznkai proposed above sounds good to me. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. User:Khodabandeh14 has a clean block log. This is an area where there is a lot of nationalistic editing and those who oppose it are often targeted by nationalists. I'm not convinced that there is suffficient rationale here to treat both editors the same way. I'm not saying I can't be convinced, just that I'm aware that this is a difficult area in which to work and I wish to be assured that we are not banning a basically constructive editor from it and thereby perhaps creating more problems for those trying to maintain an NPOV position in this area. Dougweller (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
what Dougweller said. Go easy on the topic bans. You can always encourage admins to adopt a zero-tolerance for temporary blocks over disruptive behaviour. Or a 1RR policy or something. For the "well-meaning but agenda-driven hothead" type of editor, it is more than enough to impose a week-long cool-down block every time they get out of line. Strictly speaking I don't see why the arbcom is required for something like this, as it is within the authority of admins. But there you are. This can easily be fixed on the admin level just as long as admins are alerted to the problem and encouraged to issue temporary blocks. Imho the arbcom should limit itself to do just that. --dab (𒁳) 11:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just like Dougweller and dab, I'm opposed to treating Khodabandeh14 the same way as Atabəy. I've been one of the most active administrators in this topical area and I've witnessed the behavior of these two editors first-hand over the years. Atabəy has more than earned his topic ban. To be frank, he should had been permanently banned a long time ago, but the admins have been too soft on him, giving him chance after chance that he's burnt. Khodabandeh14 on the other hand, while displaying signs of compulsive and combative behavior, is generally a constructive editor with good research skills, and who helps keep this area of articles NPOV. He may be a hothead sometimes, but anyone else constantly dealing with nationalist trolls like Atabəy who are always engaged in gaming -- is going to be prone to lose control every now and then. As Dab said, a week-long cool-down break in the form of a ban should be more than enough to deal with Khodabandeh14. Atabəy, I am afraid though, is a lost cause. Khoikhoi 16:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been significantly swamped in meatspace, so have been unable to fully follow up on this. I hope to rectify that within the next 24 hours. In the meantime, I have considered the opposing opinions, and I have found them ultimately unpersuasive. These seem to be appeals to a notion of justice in punishment: equal crime doing equal time. As we have droned on and on, bans are not punishments, but tools for preventing harm. The behavior here justifies the action independently. It is not only outside of our mandate and abilities to Do Justice, a practice best left to philosopher-kings, but ill advised in the AE context, where fine tuning lengths as a sorting function of who is the "worst" encourages even lengthier complaints and game playing behavior. Furthermore, the topic ban has a structural out. If one party is fundamentally a better editor, they will escape the ban much sooner.

I am generally of the mind that administrators should try to achieve consensus when possible, even with discretionary sanctions. However, I also balance those concerns that the need for relatively swift conclusion, and the implicit err-on-the-side-of-action implied in the broad grant of administrator discretion in discretionary sanction remedies. To that extent, I am logging the sanctions, but leaving this thread open for investigation of other users in related dispute, as well as to independently investigate and entertain arguments that Khodabandeh14 has been inappropriately sanctioned. Please bear in mind that Khodabandeh14 has apparently left Wikipedia indefinitely. Perhaps he or she will be back if the topic area is brought to heel.--Tznkai (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonchapple

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

Request concerning Jonchapple

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Domer48_'fenian' 08:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jonchapple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Per Result concerning Jonchapple Terms of probation and Enforcement

All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.

Terms of probation Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert.

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

18:04, 13 October 2011 First Revert
19:55, 13 October 2011 Second Revert
20:46, 13 October 2011 Third Revert

Additional Violation of Probation since report was filed.

All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.

Terms of probation Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert.

11:27, 17 October 2011 First Revert adds Flag against WP:MOSFLAG in addition to changing Nationality from Irish to British with sources making no mention of British.
08:40, 18 October 2011 Second Revert, Per previous again adding flag against WP:MOSFLAG and ref which dose not support addition. Notice the big green race car with big shamrock not to mention the Team Ireland logo's.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): Prior Notices of 1 RR [64][65][66][67][68][69]Violation of Terms of probation notice

Warned on 19:34, 14 August 2011 by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs)
Warned on 16:24, 14 August 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs) who made them aware of the Terms of probation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: The editor is well aware of the enforcement and sanctions, and has made it a habit of arguing the point regardless. As the notices placed on their talk page illustrate, this disruption is over a number of articles. The editor is knowingly violating this enforcement. Should addition diff be required I'm more than happy to provide them.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [70]

Discussion concerning Jonchapple

Statement by Jonchapple

I am fully aware of the sanctions under which I'm placed, but I haven't broken 1RR on any articles that come under the scope of the Troubles restrictions. If you've got some more diffs that prove I have, please provide them. JonC ^Talk 08:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Night in Hackney, Flags of country subdivisions is not an article related to The Troubles, British nationalism in Ireland, the Ulster Banner or British baronets. It's a gallery of flags used by subdivisions of states from around the world. It's as equally related to Argentinian nationalism, Australian nationalism, Austrian nationalism, Belorussian nationalism, etc. JonC ^Talk 09:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, KillerChihuahua, I'm not trying to offer up an "I didn't know!" defence, merely stating that the article in question clearly isn't covered by the Troubles restriction. Per Template:Troubles restriction, articles subject to the restriction are defined as: "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland". Flags of country subdivisions isn't, and as such isn't subject to 1RR. JonC ^Talk 14:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe this is even being considered. So, what – anything that mentions Northern Ireland even in passing is now subject to Troubles restrictions? Is Georgie Best? The Titanic?

Or is it the fact that paramilitary groups identified with the Ulster banner? Is the Flag of Ireland under a hidden 1RR too because it was used by republican groups? Honestly, I don't even know where we're at here. Maybe I'll just have to get into, say, birdwatching instead. Hope there's no birds in Northern Ireland. JonC ^Talk 16:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll only say this one more time: Flags of country subdivisions doesn't fall under the Troubles restrictions. Is anyone actually going to address this? JonC ^Talk 23:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd bothered to look at the page history of Adam Carroll, you'd notice the flag and British nationality have always been there as he's a racing driver that races with a British licence. From WP:MOSFLAG: "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality - such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams." (emphasis mine). This is the convention for racing drivers on Wikipedia, as the infobox is their racing infobox that displays their sporting information, including the country that they represent. I have now provided two sources from the two racing leagues Carroll has raced in since 2010 that clearly show he races as a Briton. You shouldn't edit articles related to subjects you clearly know nothing about (and have only found by trawling through my edit history; not for the first time). JonC ^Talk 12:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Jonchapple

Considering the probation section reads "To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles" (emphasis added) and Jonchapple is indeed edit warring regarding the Ulster Banner, his defence is incorrect, particularly as he is "fully aware of the sanctions under which I'm placed". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If an article has got the Ulster Banner in and you're edit warring over it, it's a related article. If an article has got the Ulster Banner in and you're edit warring over some other part of it, it's not a related article. It's not rocket science... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jonchapple

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

He's already on probation, the only option left is a block. I suggest a one week block, and if he comes back and does it again, block for increasing periods of time until he either learns or is indef'd. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but we have had enough of this "I didn't know!" defense from this editor, and I am disinclined to suspend disbelief enough to believe this is sincere this time. I almost simply blocked and then closed this, but would appreciate other admins offering their views before taking this step. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Support 3 month topic ban per updated options, see below. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jonchapple was here at AE as recently as September 24, which is later than the August appearance which led to his Troubles probation. See the closure of that AE. When closing, I stated "I'm closing this with no action. However any new appearances of Jonchapple here at AE in the next three months, as either the source or the target of complaints, could cause the issue to be revisited." The reason for the AE complaint was this comment by Jon in his edit summary, referring to Domer48 as 'Dumbo48': "Seeing as Dumbo48 won't play nice, let's remove the republican links from this article". During the discussion at that AE, participants (including one arbitrator) stated that WP:TROUBLES could be interpreted nowadays as allowing bans from the area of conflict. Since that AE was about to close with a 3-month topic ban, I propose that we now go ahead and issue the topic ban that was previously considered. The mention of the Ulster banner in the Troubles arbcom case surely allows banner-related edits to fall under Troubles enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten that, thank you for reminding me. I support a 3-month topic ban for this editor. So glad we're not painted into the "block or nothing" corner. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:TROUBLES give us the authority to hand out a topic ban? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion in the Result section of the last AE about Jonchapple for the logic of giving out topic bans under TROUBLES. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is fine with me. Perhaps we should ask Arbcom for a clarification or amendment to make it official. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be nice to have a note, I forgot this myself, and I was part of the discussion - but do we need to pester Arbcom with that? Ask a clerk, maybe? Or Coren, since he was the one who commented on the earlier case? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely wouldn't hurt to have this clearly on the record - and I am still of the opinion that the Troubles remedy provisions should be revamped. T. Canens (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as one of the original administrators in this area (which is a reason I have recused myself as an arbitrator), I am in the firm opinion that from practice as well as theory that a topic ban is within the bounds of the Troubles discretionary sanctions, and while recused, issue a statement supporting this in any such clarification request. I am not going to speak on the APPROPRIATENESS of the sanction (administrative recusal), just the validity of the sanction itself). SirFozzie (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and propose to the committee that we make a quick motion to bring the Troubles remedy in line with our now-standardized discretionary sanctions. I've little doubt that this preserves the original intent and simplifies things for future enforcement. For now, I agree that a topic ban is a reasonable application of administrative discretion even though a strict reading of this older remedy does not directly support it. — Coren ^(talk) 01:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bdell555

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

Request concerning Bdell555

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Bdell555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

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

07:45, 13 October 2011 Revert#1, adding back text originally added by Dbell555 here
02:32, 14 October 2011 Revert#2, within 24 hours of the previous revert

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

Warned on 16:25, 17 June 2010 by RepublicanJacobite (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In addition to being a violation of 1RR, the edit is also a violation of WP:BLP and WP:SYN. I'll give some brief background just to help make it clear why. During The Troubles, the Provisional Irish Republican Army and/or Sinn Féin did at various times conducted both direct and indirect talks with the British Government or their representatives, including the 1972 talks when IRA members were flown to London, during the 1975 IRA ceasefire, during the 1980/1981 hunger strikers, and during the early 1990s. Throughout The Troubles, but completely unrelated to those talks, IRA members became informers and passed information to the police, army, MI5 or similar. Therefore to have a sentence in Martin McGuinness's article reading "He was in indirect contact with British intelligence during the hunger strikes in the early 1980s, and again in the early 1990s, but in a BBC interview stated that the penalty for "go[ing] over to the other side" was "death, certainly." It insinuates Martin McGuinness "went over to the other side" by talking with the British, when he didn't and he's talking about IRA members, who are well aware the penalty for informing is death as it's in the Green Book which they have to read before being sworn in. So it's synthesis to try and conflate two different issues, especially to add a BLP violating insinuation. But when all's said and done anyway, it's a 1RR violation no matter what. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I've stepped into some strange alternate universe where nothing makes sense.

There is the original addition of the text, reading "although he stated that the penalty for fellow Republicans who "went over to the other side" was death.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch5u8YbOyIE McGuinness interview]</ref>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_McGuinness&action=historysubmit&diff=455336065&oldid=455332631 There] is the first revert, reading "although he stated that the penalty for fellow Republicans who "went over to the other side" was death.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch5u8YbOyIE McGuinness interview]</ref>"

Both edits were made by Bdell555, so the first revert was not some innocent mistake where he was adding back material previously added by another editor, it was a clear and unambiguous revert.

Claiming that adding information to a completely unrelated article, which was once deleted, would be a revert because the article was deleted, well I hope anyone can see the amount of wikilawyering involved in that one.

RepublicanJacobite's revert included WP:SYN in the edit summary, no attempt was made to comply with that with the second revert, nor was there any attempt to discuss on the talk page.

Given Bdell555 is stil edit warring to include this without attempting to discuss, hopefully this can be dealt with soon? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [71]

Discussion concerning Bdell555

Statement by Bdell555

In the above complaint, "Revert#2" is followed by "within 24 hours" in order to argue that this is an edit warring reversion. If time frame is relevant, and Wikipedia policy seems to indicate it is, then "Revert#1" should be followed by "within 16 months". This information is excluded, of course, because it doesn't support the claim that "Revert#1" is really a "revert" under a definition relevant to whether someone is edit warring. If one is to insist there isn't an identity and change issue by deeming the passage of 16 months and hundreds of intermediate edits to the article irrelevant, then by this logic I could return to, say, the Down with Webster article 50 years from now and ANY addition I make to the article could potentially be cited as a "reversion" in an edit warring complaint. Why? Because given that someone deleted the article in 2009, any addition I make, even in the distant future, is arguably a "reversion" of another's "work" (which was to delete everything). If an editor has declined to edit an article for more than 15 months, may I suggest that he or she has stopped edit warring? In the case at hand, I would dispute whether there was an edit war in the first place, given that last summer when my work was reverted I just let it remain deleted at that time. As for the content dispute, my "Revert#2" already attempted to answer an edit summary objection to my alleged "Revert#1". Any WP:SYN problem here could have been corrected by moving the material I added to somewhere else instead of deleting it, and instead of trying to cram this additional objection into an edit summary, the complainant could have explained his views on my User page, or better yet on the article Talk page, as opposed to first and finally introducing his argument here. However you want to define "edit warring" technically, in my mind it is undoing another editor's work without trying to minimize the undoing (e.g. by not making an effort to just partially revert or move, etc), without trying to work with the other editor(s) by changing the edit according to their objection(s), and without addressing the issue on the article Talk page. Given that more than a third of my edits to article and Talk pages are to the Talk pages, it is not like I am unwilling to discuss should the complainant be so inclined.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the new allegations: 1) I have never claimed to be "adding back material previously added by another editor" and I have not called attention to any real or hypothetical cases involving this by way of argument (since those instances are irrelevant). My "innocent mistake" was thinking the "clock had restarted" after more than 15 months since the "clock" appears to be integral to determining whether edit warring is going on, both formally and in terms of common sense. If it NEVER restarts the guidelines should state that explicitly, in my view, because absent that people are going to make their own common sense assumptions about when edit wars begin and end. 2) re "wiki-lawyering" I'm not the party trying to take this content dispute to "court" 3) I "attempt[ed] to comply" with the WP:SYN objection with my latest edit and the complainant promptly responded by indicating that, as I suspected, this would not resolve the objection anyway! 4) the Talk page discussion, which in my view should have been initiated by the complainant before coming here to make demands on already busy admins, is underway now that the complainant has made some remarks warranting a longer response than an edit summary can provide.--Brian Dell (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Bdell555

Result concerning Bdell555

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

Both of the edits listed above restore the phrase "over to the other side", which had previously been deleted by another editor. So there are in fact two reverts in 24 hours by Bdell555, and this is an actual 1RR violation. It should not be necessary to understand the complaint about WP:Synthesis to determine if this is a Troubles violation. A 24-hour block is a common remedy for a 1RR violation but it might be avoided if the editor will promise to avoid all Troubles articles for a month. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ludwigs2

Appealing user: Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ludwigs2 17:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from Astrology article, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Ludwigs2

Administrator imposing the sanction: KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: notice of appeal

Statement by Ludwigs2

This topic ban was improper for the following reasons:

It failed to acknowledge or consider mitigating factors
It failed to acknowledge or consider a perfectly feasible non-sanction solution
It was (apparently) punitive rather than corrective
It effectively imposes a dual standard for sanctionable behavior

Point 1 - Failure over mitigating factors: The sanction was based on the five or six unfortunate comments that were entered into the case. It failed to consider 50+ edits I made to the same talk page which were calm, cool, reasonable, productive, and in no way disruptive. On request, I will provide diffs of all such comments. Narrowly focussing on a small subset of behavior can make anyone look like a monster, and while I do not try to justify my comments, taking them out of context and placing them under a magnifying glass is an improper way to evaluate my behavior. My behavior on the page was largely good, and was improving as time went on, and that was disregarded as a factor.
Point 2 - Failure over non-sanctioning resolution: I offered a solution to the problem which effectively resolved all of the concerns raised: promising to refrain from 'poisoning the well' type statements.[72]. I included two caveats: that I be allowed to discuss skepticism as a cultural group (based on the common practice on fringe articles to discuss fringe advocates as insular groups), and that I be allowed the opportunity to refactor if I erred (this to avoid being blocked on the spot for a minor slip). KillerChihuahua did not acknowledge this in the AE discussion, and when I approached her on her talk page after her response was a gross misrepresentation of my offer, asserting that I had not pledged to de better (when in fact I specifically had) and that I was looking for a loophole to attack other editors. [73]. The latter was probably my mistake - I worded the offer as "be allowed to refer to skeptical editors as a cultural group" instead of be allowed to refer to skepticism as a cultural group" - but I would hope that would be obvious from the context. See more on the more troubling aspect of this issue in point 4 below.
Point 3 - Punitive nature: Policy for sanctions on Wikipedia asserts (I am using the language from wp:Blocking policy, which I assume is universal) that sanctions are intended to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. However, it is clear from KillerChihuahua's language that she is not aiming to alter my behavior, but rather to adjust my attitude - "I suggest a month long break from all Astrology articles, to give Ludwigs time to think this over and hopefully come back with a more productive attitude"[74], "I also do not see any serious attempt to be self-critical or improve. Leaning towards making the topic ban 6 months, not 1." Whatever one may think of my 'attitude' on project, it is not KillerChihuahua's or the Project's purpose to change it or improve me as a person. The goal of sanctions is to prevent disruptive behavior. Since (per the previous points), the behavior being questioned was largely gone and I had offered a resolution that would effectively end it, this sanction can only be perceived as a punitive measure.
Point 4 - Dual standard of sanctionable behavior: KillerChihuahua's sanction effectively creates a dual-standard of behavior on fringe articles. Editors on fringe articles have a long history of referring to people who believe in fringe topics as specific and identifiable minority groups, despite the fact that on a topic like astrology from a quarter to a half of the general population has some belief in the topic. Sometimes this is done abusively, as with the all-to-frequent dismissive comments about 'fringe advocates', but generally it is a valid move important to maintaining NPOV and proper perspective on the article. KillerChihuahua's objection to my offer focuses entirely on the fact that my request to do the same with skepticism is morally wrong [75]. However, it is precisely as necessary for neutrality to keep a clear vision of skepticism as a cultural perspective as it is to keep a clear view of fringe views. It would be impossible for me to bring every case of fringe-group labeling to AE - there is a long-standing acceptance of that practice in administrative pages which would make any such case unsuccessful, and the sheer volume of cases would swamp AE (I could easily produce ten or twenty over the course of a standard week) - so a dual standard is created in which one group perspective is subject to unilateral administrative sanctions. The administrative process on Wikipedia should not be complicit in enforcing violations of NPOV.

Proposed resolution to the Appeal

I would like the topic ban lifted under the same conditions (slightly modified, for reasons given above) that I offered on the AE page:

That I refrain from 'poisoning the well' type commentary.
That I be allowed to refer to skepticism as an insular perspective (in a non-poisoning-the-well manner), consistent with the standard practice of referring to fringe groups as insular perspectives.
That I be allowed to refactor if I make an error (within reasonable constraints, obviously), so that I am not constantly in danger of being sanctioned for any reason at any moment.

Modifications are, of course, welcome if further guarantees are necessary on the project's side: my main concern is relief from punitive sanctions and some guarantee on my side that this ruling does not become an excuse to impose future sanctions vindictively.

This is going to be my behavior regardless. Whether or not this sanction is lifted, I will be entering discussions on articles where I will run against this strong cultural bias, so it is obvious that I will need to be deeply circumspect in my actions regardless. We might as well begin on the astrology page now rather than later; the ban serves no particular purpose. --Ludwigs2 17:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

quick response to KC, before I'm off for the day

Considering violations without giving any credit to context or improvements is not appropriate.
As I clearly stated, (1) it is a long-standing practice to lump groups together on fringe pages, and (2) the use of the term 'editors' was an unfortunate typo. I am not making a judgment about the wisdom of that kind of grouping (I can, if you like). I'm simply stating that the practice cannot be sanctionable for one side only. Doing so means you are using your power as an administrator to assert that a particular viewpoint is true, and that's unconscionable.
You refuse to accept it when I say I will stop, you refuse to look at all of the positive contributions I made to the page, and then you turn around and tell my I need to reconsider my approach? what approach is it precisely that you want me to reconsider, if not to have better behavior and make positive contributions? It is increasingly clear here that you are trying to punish me for some some attitude you dislike rather than deal with my occasional bad behavior. that does not rise to the level of unconscionable, but it is unfortunate.
the editor who filed the report (Hypocrite) refers to 'duped true believers'; there are numerous comments on the talk page about 'advocates' and 'apologists' for fringe topics. there are even such comments by participants in the AE thread itself. Your comment that I was the only editor in the report can only mean that you are intentionally ignoring similar behavior by others in order to make a case for a stronger sanction, and that - again - speaks to a punitive mindset.

KC, you are simply not being reasonable. --Ludwigs2 18:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to T, Canens: I am noting for the record that this is the second time I have received an excessive and unjustified sanction under Arbitration Enforcement while working on a fringe topic. People can say what they want about my flaws (and undoubtably will; it seems that personal attacks are always allowable when directed at me) and I never deny it, but a system where punishment is doled out because someone 'feels' like an 'attitude' needs adjusting is just plain horrific. You ask me to examine my flaws, but you (collectively) are unwilling to examine your own. If you want to pursue an utterly pointless sanction against me I can't stop you (short of raising the issue with ArbCom itself, I guess, and I doubt it's worth that), but I cannot respect the system or the people who use it in this emotionally haphazard way. --Ludwigs2 14:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification to KC: The principle I am concerned with here is the intrinsic bias that I (and many other editors I know) experience when working on fringe topics on wikipedia. It's a function of not toeing to the skepticism line: Anyone who does not agree that fringe topics are intrinsically contemptible is labeled as an advocate and monitored by numerous editors who seek out problematic behavior to use in administrative actions. We are required to have far better behavior than other editors (because everything we do is examined with a fine-toothed comb), are punished more severely for smaller infractions (because people exaggerate the problems hyperbolically), and are generally harassed by other editors/administrators with impunity. I'm not suggesting that you intentionally gave me a harsher punishment than I deserved because I did not toe the skepticism line; I'm telling you that the deck was stacked against me the instant I stepped onto the astrology page and tried to create a neutral tone in the article. This would never have happened if I were trying to add damning information to the article, even of my behavior were far worse than it was (which I know because I've been on the receiving end of far worse behavior, and seen the perpetrator excused for it).
I keep hoping that administrators will see the light and do something to redress this bias, but it's becoming increasingly clear that that will not happen. Sooner or later, I'm afraid, we are going to have to reopen the pseudoscience arbitration decision and fix it by ArbCom fiat - it will not get fixed otherwise. In the meantime, I'll be on my best behavior. That will not make any difference, mind you; I will certainly be back here in a few months because someone somewhere will will find some excuse to impose a sanction on me. The only real power I have is to be as close to perfect as possible and force whomever that will be to reach for something truly trivial as an excuse for the sanction. But mark my words, it will happen. We can reopen this discussion then. --Ludwigs2 16:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KillerChihuahua

Response to points as numbered by Ludwigs:

Edits which did not violate sanctions were not specifically considered; while Ludwigs' contributions to the project were weighed in determining the sanction, the report, discussion and sanction were all necessarily about the violations, not adherences to, policies and Discretionary sanctions as authorized by ArbCom.
Ludwigs offered a "counter proposal" to proposed sanctions, in which he basically offered to try to follow policy so long as he was allowed to continue to lump opposing editors together, as he would "ethnic or religious groups". I did not consider this a helpful solution. I neither accused him of not trying to be better, nor of looking for a loophole, but did caution him on my talk page when approached that such characterization is problematic and has led to blocks and bans.
If Ludwigs cannot edit collegially, he cannot edit. A topic ban of short duration will hopefully allow him time to reconsider his approach. I changed from 1 month to 6 due to his continued combative approach on AE, indicating he would continue problematic and disruptive behaviors. It appeared to me that more time away would be needed to gain the necessary perspective. I hope 6 months is enough time; I hope he spends that time wisely, re-examining his edits on Astrology and why they were so disruptive and unacceptable. In his statement, he included the comment that "I don't [like] my attitude sometimes either - but my attitude is a product of trying to reason with people who do not want to be reasonable and are willing to use force to avoid it." in which he admits that his attitude may have a fault, but then turns around and blames that on the other editors, who "do not want to be reasonable". There is nothing punitive about trying to separate an uncivil editor from those he blames for his lapses in civility and personal attacks.
Ludwigs2 was the only editor in the report, and therefore the only editor for whom sanctions were considered. There was no hypothetical other editor who was not sanctioned. This is unfortunately another example of the "Us vs. Them" battleground view which has caused so many problems, and is continuing to cause problems, for Ludwigs2 and editors trying to work with him.

Please let me know if there are any questions, thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the topic ban is fairly narrow, and about a subject (Astrology) that Ludwigs2 has stated several times he does not care much about editing; he has also stated that "I'm not all that concerned about the topic ban itself" and is appealing merely for the principle of the thing.[76] I'm not quite clear on which principle he feels is in play here, however. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2: Regarding AQFK's and T. Canens comments regarding sanctions of persons other than the person reported: Yes, we have the discretion to sanction others; I have done so myself in the past and will surely do so again. I did not mean to imply that such sanctions should not happen, or that I never consider them, etc; but rather that in a case where only one person is reported, for that person to have sanctions and not others is not a "double standard"; a double standard would have been if two editors with virtually identical transgressions, editing history, contributions records, comportment etc had been reported, and one had been sanctioned and the other not. So 1) this is not a case of having a double standard and 2) My post was not meant to imply that because this particular time the one person reported was the only person sanctioned that is how it always is, or should be. Sometimes the reporting party is sanctioned and not the one reporting, for example. (And when that happens, its not a case of shooting the messenger, either.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Becritical

I think the Ludwigs has earned himself some sanction, certainly, for being chronically uncivil. But the way it looks to me he has stated that he will not be uncivil anymore. Thus, I think 6 months is harsh. I was expecting something more like two weeks or a month, and then another chance to see if he can be civil and not refer to groups of editors in a negative manner. I would suggest revising the ban period to two weeks or a month, then give a longer ban if things do not go well when he comes back. He does have useful ideas on the articles where he edits. He is also correct that the more scientifically oriented editors are nasty to the advocates a lot. This is a fact for what it's worth. It is obvious that there are two sides at the article, and it would be unreasonable to try and make Ludwigs never mention that fact. The two sides obviously come from different social milieus.

How about if he promises not to make his own behavior contingent on the behavior of others? Because I've been observing him for some time now, and eliminating that excuse would go 90% of the way to either having him be civil, or else be uncivil with no excuse at all. B^e——C_ritical 19:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Olive

As long as a solution has been offered by Ludwigs as an effort to correct his own behaviour then a sanction becomes only necessary as a secondary step, that is, if the first step, in a community that professes to be non punitive, isn't effective. Self correction on Wikipedia by implication is a superior and preferred way to deal with behaviour that is not community accepted. And Ludwigs is right. Name calling is rampant in regards to some editors and by some editors.The truly unfortunate aspect is that this name calling has become so commonplace, like fringe POV pushers, advocate, and worse, and has become so engrained in the Wikipedia culture that it is accepted, brushed aside with out notice, or ignored.

If any aspects of Ludwigs proposal isn't acceptable remove it , and amend the proposal. Always, our position must be to help editors improve behaviours, and to do so in a way that does not punish good and productive editors. Seems a simple, first-step solution has been offered. (olive (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

I have not participated in the discussion on the Astrology talk page, but I have followed it over the course of the last week. From watching the discussion, it's clear that Ludwigs2 has earned himself a sanction, but it's also clear that he's not the only one causing a problem. On the one hand, I am sympathetic to the viewpoint that the reason why Ludwigs2 is the only editor being banned is simply because he was only editor being reported. That's fine. I understand that. But on the other hand, by focusing on a single editor in a dispute when other editors are also causing a problem, it simply leads to gaming of the system. I don't fault anyone at AE for this happening. My point is that a more holistic approach is required. Maybe my point is beyond the scope of this appeal, but something is broken in the system itself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

Just a comment here, this caught my attention (I have AE on my watchlist). I personally do not consider the sanction to be out of line with expectations. In fact, I have concerns that this is seemingly a habit with Ludwigs2. Consider the events of the Arbitration Enforcement Sanction Handling ArbCom case. Ludwigs2 is a generally decent editor, as long as other editors remain relatively civil. However, they has a habit of "returning fire" so to speak. If they perceive someone as editing outside Wikipedia's norms and policies, then they feel justified in violating those norms to deal with it. Unfortunately, as the saying goes "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind". It is important to stay within Wikipedia's norms and policies when everyone else is.. it is just as important to do so when other editors are violating them, it means that admins and others in the topic area can see the difference between those playing by the rules and those who are violating them.. makes everyone's life easier....SirFozzie (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ludwigs2

Result of the appeal by Ludwigs2

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

This appeal does not seem to challenge KillerChihuahua's conclusion that misconduct occurred, only the sanction imposed for the misconduct. I'm not convinced that KC's chosen sanction (a 6-month topic ban) exceeds the limits of admin discretion. Regardless of whether I would have chosen to impose the same sanction or a more lenient one, therefore, I'm of the opinion that this appeal should be declined, consistent with my longstanding view that AE appeals should not be used to micromanage the severity of sanctions. If, after some time, Ludwigs2 can demonstrate a substantial positive change in his interactions with other editors, an appeal to shorten the ban will likely be considered favorably. T. Canens (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AQFK raises a good point. Ludwigs2 made some serious allegations against Hipocrite that, if true, may well constitute grounds for sanctions. While KC is correct that H. wasn't technically reported, and we are never obligated to look into the filer's conduct, we do have the discretion to do so, and in this case it might have been better if we had taken a long, hard look at all involved parties. Regardless of the particularities of this case, I think we should clarify the way by which a countercomplaint may be made. T. Canens (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think T. Canens (and KC) are actually making a very important point about this appeal - it doesn't challenge the grounds on which the sanction was given (ie behavior incompatible with collegial editing); and given that KC's points in the original AE thread dismiss the dubious diffs and rely only on diffs where editwarring and well poisoning occurred I don't see a reason to overturn KC. I would echo T. Canens's suggestion that if, after time has passed, that Ludwigs2 can show that there is no longer a need for this sanction he should appeal it then--Cailil ^talk 15:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any flaws in KillerChihuahua's reasoning and her closure with a 6-month topic ban seems well within discretion. At any time, Ludwigs2 is free to start creating a record of more calm and reasonable participation in discussions, to show that this previous problems are over and that he is able to "discuss matters more circumspectly and ... avoid drama-creating rhetoric." If he does so, this close might be revisited. His self-assigned role as a defender of certain positions which he feels to be unfairly maligned on Wikipedia can't be helpfully pursued at Talk:Astrology and I don't know what is a better venue. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[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 508: / Line 508: @@
 :::Or is it the fact that paramilitary groups identified with the Ulster banner? Is the [[Flag of Ireland]] under a hidden 1RR too because it was used by republican groups? Honestly, I don't even know where we're at here. Maybe I'll just have to get into, say, birdwatching instead. Hope there's no birds in Northern Ireland.  [[User:Jonchapple|<font color="#004225">JonC</font>]][[User_talk:Jonchapple|<sup><font color="#F28500">Talk</font></sup>]] 16:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 ::::I'll only say this one more time: [[Flags of country subdivisions]] doesn't fall under the Troubles restrictions. Is anyone actually going to address this? [[User:Jonchapple|<font color="#004225">JonC</font>]][[User_talk:Jonchapple|<sup><font color="#F28500">Talk</font></sup>]] 23:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
+If you'd bothered to look at the page history of [[Adam Carroll]], you'd notice the flag and British nationality have always been there as he's a racing driver that races with a British licence. From [[WP:MOSFLAG]]: ''"Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually '''represents that country''', government, or nationality - such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams."'' (emphasis mine). This is the convention for racing drivers on Wikipedia, as the infobox is their ''racing'' infobox that displays their sporting information, including the country that they represent. I have now provided two sources from the two racing leagues Carroll has raced in since 2010 that clearly show he races as a Briton. You shouldn't edit articles related to subjects you clearly know nothing about (and have only found by trawling through my edit history; not for the first time). [[User:Jonchapple|<font color="#004225">JonC</font>]][[User_talk:Jonchapple|<sup><font color="#F28500">Talk</font></sup>]] 12:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 ====Comments by others about the request concerning Jonchapple====

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards