Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:19, 15 November 2009

Requests for enforcement

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

User:HistoricWarrior007 appeal of topic ban

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

Note: I have reformatted this request - it appears to be an appeal against a ban imposed by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise after he was told this was the place to appeal[1], but was incorrectly formatted as a complaint. henrik•talk 22:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning appeal of topic ban by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

User requesting enforcement:

HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:

Appeal of topic ban

Sanction or remedy that this user wishes to appeal:

Unjust Topic Ban

HistoricWarrior, with this edit I feel you have crossed a line. You (and others) were warned some weeks ago that the permanent hostility and edit-warring on that article would not be tolerated forever. For the aggressive "ownership" attitude, hostility, threats and personal attacks expressed in this latest posting of yours, in connection with the months-long history of near-permanent edit-warring on the same article, you are now topic-banned from the 2008 South Ossetia War article, all articles related to it, and all related talk pages, for a period of two months. This topic ban will be logged at the Arbcom enforcement section of WP:DIGWUREN. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of prior warnings:

HistoricWarrior007 has no history of prior warnings.

Ban was imposed here: [2]

Enforcement action requested:

Exoneration from the Unjust Topic Ban

Additional comments by HistoricWarrior007 (talk):

I do not believe the ban is appropriate, as it goes against this wishes of the Community, 6 experienced editors told Future Perfect at Sunrise that his watchful eye in our article was unnecessary, and no one spoke out in his favor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring, and the ban based on the policy I did not know about, WP:DIGWUREN.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFuture_Perfect_at_Sunrise&action=historysubmit&diff=325113200&oldid=325060114

Discussion concerning appeal

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

I fully stand behind this topic ban: HistoricWarrior007 has a history of a persistently hostile, very combative battleground attitude over that article, combined with nearly incessant slow revert-warring over many months. I have become convinced that his presence is the main factor that has made the talkpage of 2008 South Ossetia war an incredibly toxic environment. The edit that triggered the sanction [3] was just the straw that broke the camel's back. His conduct here and previously on WP:RFAR, with the aggressive claim that all those dozens (or hundreds, by now?) reverts of his were not revert-warring but removal of "vandalism", and his immediate assumptions of bad faith on my part, just illustrate the same problem. (Incidentally, it's ironic I was accused of being anti-EMLL when I sanctioned Jacurek (talk · contribs) the other day; now I'm being accused of being pro-EMLL because I happen to sanction somebody on the other side.)

Since the topic ban, HW has shifted his activity to other Russian war topics, such as Dagestan and Chechnya, and some of his edits have been so blatantly tendentious I am seriously considering if even more stringent restrictions are necessary. Here [4] he is inserting an unsourced, highly negative biographical assertion as a fact, when he must know (from the main article on that person) that the underlying claim is, at best, contentious. Here [5], in an edit that is actually skirting the topic ban (a bio of a semi-notable political analyst, which he only wrote as a WP:COATRACK because he was previously promoting quotations from that analyst on the South Ossetia article for evident POV reasons), he describes the orientation of a Russian political journal as "a common sense magazine that does it best to explain what is going on in Russia without pandering to corporate interests". – I am convinced no editor of HW's intelligence and experience could possibly, even for a minute, fool himself into believing this is a neutral description. Therefore, this edit, even though only affecting a minor side issue, displays a reckless disregard for NPOV. This kind of irresponsible editing, by failing to strive for NPOV, is in and by itself sanctionable behaviour (in terms of the discretionary sanctions clause: failure "to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia"). 07:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just adding a dummy edit here to prevent the thread from being archived without a conclusion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HistoricWarrior007

FutPerf accuses me of (1) ownership of the article; (2) edit-warring and hostility; (3) threats;

(1) Ownership: I have encouraged everyone to use the discussion page prior to editing, as is required by the article’s "controversial" template. I have discussed all of my edits, prior to making them. When a new user made an edit that I didn’t agree with, I reverted it, and asked him to use the talkpage; after the discussion, his arguments were better than mine, and he made the edit. There is a ton of material in the article that I disagree with in the article, but sometimes I win the discussion and they go, and sometimes I lose the discussion and they stay. And if anyone still thinks that I “own” the article, I volunteer for a 4 month long 1RR restriction in that article.

(2) Edit-Warring and hostility: as was previously pointed out to FutPerf, what was occurring in the article was not edit-warring but vandalism, and reverts of said vandalism. Despite 6 users pointing this out to FutPerf, all of whom are knowledgeable, long-term editors of the article, with a 2-4 pro-Georgian - pro-Russian split, FutPerf ignored our combined statements, and proceeded to claim edit-warring where none existed. Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring.

(3) Threats: I challenge FutPerf to find a single threat that I made. Here is what FutPerf believes is a threat: "I am tired of you using these tactics. I won't hesitate to expose anymore of these tactics, the minute I see them. So don't use them." On the other hand FutPerf has been accused of making threats in our article, as is shown in the link above.

FutPerf claims that I was warned, in the above listed link and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Question_to_Arbcom:_2008_South_Ossetia_War However, in the latter link, ArbCom completely ignored FutPerf’s request; when a Court ignores a request, the status quo prevails, and no warning occurs.

I also fail to see why I am being punished per WP:DIGWUREN, considering that I had no knowledge of WP:DIGWUREN. FutPerf states that it applies to all Eastern European Articles, but FutPerf failed to mention it in both of his "warnings".

The edit that I am being topic-banned for can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2008_South_Ossetia_war&action=historysubmit&diff=324541357&oldid=324532032 Granted, it wasn’t my brightest move, and the joke at the end was in poor taste. Nevertheless, in my defense, the edit involved the title debates, which occupy, literally, over 100 pages; it’s where every point was argued and counter-argued at least several times.

It is also interesting to note that FurPerf topic-banned me shortly after I presented evidence for ArbCom, and that he made the "warning" in the article, shortly after FeelSunny and I spoke out in the ArbCom case, regarding the Cabal.

To summarize, I am being banned for something I did not do, by an administrator who is hostile towards me, using a policy I never heard of. I have no history of prior bans/blocks/warnings. Thus, I am appealing.

Response to Biophys

Biophys takes the song that I posted, altered it, and on the basis of his alterations, claims that I am a member of Nashi.

Biophys' Version: "knife-bayonet penetrates a trembling body of your enemy"

Actual Version: "knife-bayonet penetrates the body...The poet-praised Caucasian Region is covered in blood, in the hearts hatred stings, but SpetzNaz will close hatred's path with their chests, because SpetzNaz doesn't run from danger"

The point of the song is to show that everyone suffered, but Biophys altered it, to make it look like the SpetzNaz was out to get the "enemy". (The word "enemy" isn't mentioned in the entire song, not even once. Nor is the word "trembling".) Additionally, Biophys connects this song to the KGB, that he sees everywhere. However the song is about the SpetzNaz. SpetzNaz is as much related to the KGB, as the Green Berets to the CIA; in other words - there's no relationship.

Please see here for further elaboration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Response_to_Biophys

Response to Future Perfect at Sunrise

It is interesting to note how quickly Future Perfect at Sunrise changed his reasons from (1) ownership of the article and (3) threats, completely dismissing those, and now arguing for (1) hostile-combative attitude and (3) toxicity of the talkpage, but he's still keeping the revert-warring claim.

My hostile-combative attitude can be easily debunked, by the fact that I backed down, when a new user presented better evidence, that contradicted evidence presented by MDB, a publication that I have always backed, and even had a dispute with FutPerf about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_27#Italics_vs_Quotes, where he made the edit, and I took it to the talkpage.

My recent reverts resulted when a user blanked a whole section, and I restored that section. With the exception of that, I had no reverts after FutPerf issued his "warning", that weren't reverts of vandalism. The revert wars have died out, before FutPerf entered the article. Please review this section, which completely debunks FutPerf's claim about my hostile-combative attitude: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Moving_Over_from_my_Talkpage_-_naval_stuff. A short summary: two users came to me to ask for a mini-dispute resolution regarding the position of the Russian Naval Forces in the 2008 South Ossetia War. How can I be hostile and combative, when fellow Wikipedians are asking me to resolve a dispute?

I had less than 100 overall reverts, not counting vandalism reverts. I have never broken 3RR. I was never warned for any of my reverts. I repeatedly asked fellow Wikipedians to use the talkpage. FutPerf shows that he has no data on the issue, by claiming for "dozens, maybe hundreds" of reverts. I understand people are busy, but when administering a two-month topic ban, isn't it at least necessary to know whether a user did 24 or 400 reverts? Isn't it vital to know the time span? In a year's time of editing that article, I had less than 100 non-vandalism reverts. That's less than 1 revert in three days.

In response to the new "evidence" brought in by FutPerf:

151: Litvinenko first worked for the FSB, and then worked against the FSB for Berezovsky's Group. That makes him a double-agent, which is all that I inserted. I didn't say whether he was a bad or good double agent, but if you are working for two different security organizations, giving the intelligence of one organization to another, you are a double-agent, and I fail to see what's so negative about that. Every country has double-agents, it doesn't automatically make one the embodiment of evil.

152: I wrote an article on Patrick Armstrong, who works with Sharon Tennison to strengthen the US-Russia relationship. I made an effort to exclude anything he wrote that was relevant to the 2008 South Ossetia War, out of the article. I fail to see how that skirts the issue.

Future Perfect at Sunrise also claimed negativity about my edits to the Second Chechen War and Invasion of Dagestan Articles. He has yet to provide proof of how those were bad. I am a military historian, I edit articles relevant to military history. Why is this a crime? And no user can be truly NPOV, we all know that, and we all have bias on the basis of our education. One punishes editors for warring over POV, not for merely inserting their POV into the articles. The very fact that FutPerf is bringing such "evidence", shows that he has no evidence. And in terms of the Invasion of Dagestan, right after I began to edit that article, FutPerf, who showed no interest in the article prior to my editing of it, moved to delete the SpetzNaz image. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dagestan_1999.jpg

(3) Toxic Atmosphere: the most toxic atmosphere that I have seen in the 2008 South Ossetia War Article, was created by FutPerf. For instance when he came into the article to offer his services, he was vehemently rejected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring

I will quote some of the reception that FutPerf's idea received, and these sum up the views of everyone who edited the article, except Biophys, who thinks I'm a member of Nashi, and KGB is editing Wikipedia Articles. Here is the reception to the toxic and hostile environment that FutPerf created, and then turned around and accused me of creating; reception to FutPerf's "policing" the article:

A. I'm sorry, but I don't think threatening editors is the correct answer here. Many of us have been working hard to improve the article. Offliner (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

B. So let me get this straight. An administrator is threatening to block a group of users who are almost entirely responsible for the article in its current form, simply because of the unavoidable fact that the topic is controversial and there are parties on both sides who are adamant that the article stay neutral from their view? So what would you rather, one person or one group with coinciding views to edit it to their liking with no disruptions? Your logic is incomprehensible to me...LokiiT (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

C. If I'm thinking of the same "small group of editors" that you're referring to, Future Perfect at Sunrise, I belive that you're sadly mistaken. Although disagreements do break out, as they usually do on such a controversial and fairly recent topic, this "small group of editors" has done a superb job of revamping this article over the past several months. There is little revert-warring occurring, and the only reason for the high revert count is due to the fact that Reenem's edits are often reverted, as they are done improperly and violate WIkipedia rules, as HistoricWarrior said earlier...Laurinavicius (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

D. Do I understand it right your last message means you intend to block me from editing this article together with a "whole cast of its regular editors" unless I convince you this article can breath with me editing it? If so, you can proceed with your administrator duties and rights and block me right away, if this is your intent. Please take into account that whatever decision you make, you make it on your own discretion, of course, and this message is in no way an expression of my wish to be blocked. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

FurPerf's threats and subsequent carrying out of said threats, are the reason for the hostility that he is getting, and not just from me.

Nobody is accusing Future Perfect at Sunrise of EMLL, and the Jacurek case is irrelevant. The accusation I made, was that as soon as FeelSunny and I spoke out in the ArbCom case, Future Perfect at Sunrise threatened us in the 2008 South Ossetia War Article, thereby creating the toxic atmosphere. He also "warned" Xeeron from the other side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Question_to_Arbcom:_2008_South_Ossetia_War FeelSunny, Xeeron and I were the most active ArbCom contributors from the 2008 South Ossetia War article, that weren't directly involved in the case. And he directly accused the three of us.

The accusation against FutPerf is that he worked actively to against the writers of the 2008 South Ossetia War Article that commented on the ArbCom case, irrespective of the sides.

On the 18th of September, 2009 I asked to be included in the proceedings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring

On the 22nd of September, Future Perfect at Sunrise appeared with a threat in the 2008 South Ossetia War Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring

On the 5th of November, I presented evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FEastern_European_mailing_list%2FEvidence&action=historysubmit&diff=324160468&oldid=323152291

On the 8th of November, I received the topic ban: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoricWarrior007#Topic-banned

And I've yet to understand why I was blocked per WP:DIGWUREN a policy that FutPerf didn't warn me about, a policy that I didn't even know existed.

Response to Looie496

According to FutPerf, I was "warned" twice:

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring (please note the response to FutPerf's "warning" by editors on all sides, as we tried to, in vain, inform him that the edit-war was over.)

And Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Question_to_Arbcom:_2008_South_Ossetia_War

Please note, that with the exception of Biophys, who thinks I'm Nashi because I posted a SpetzNaz song, (that's like relating Green Berets to Black Panthers,) no one supports FutPerf. In the second request, FeelSunny asks for proof of edit warring, and Biophys provides his altered version of the song instead. The second one was also phrased as "Question to ArbCom" to which ArbCom didn't reply. So it FutPerf's language, "Question to ArbCom" really means "warning to the editors I am mentioning below". You can find the elaboration here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoricWarrior007#Topic-banned

This is Just here

So that the bot of MitzaIII won't be archiving my ban appeal for yet a third time.

Comment by Biophys

Some background information. Biophys (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on fighting for the Righteous cause, thou Knight. In other words, we know there is an anti-Russian web brigade on WP, breaking WP rules, in coordination, every now and then. We also know you, Biophys share most of their views (not their tactics, hopefully). Yet you continue to spread these stories about alledged coordination from the other side. Never giving a single example of such coordination. Sadly for you, there was none. Read HW's above to see your translation of the song in the link is wrong. But I beleive you knew it perfectly when you put this "translation" on WP. Taking into account you know both Russian and English well, I presume it was very intentionally wrong. And then, I come to a very natural conclusion you just prefer to spread lies about HW once again. It's a shame WP has no sanctions for libel in all these discussions.

PS. I'd also like to add that after you translated the song wrong, you also called the Russian Spetsnaz forces "mercenaries". We all know the presuppositions behind "mercenaries", and "elite army units" differ. Overall, I slowly start to think State Dept sponsored web brigades.

PPS.Oops, you were on the mailing list. How come you guys from the Eastern Eoropean Mailing list find youself adequate enough to post comments to RfA?FeelSunny (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Looie496

FPS, in your topic ban you stated "you (and some others) were warned...". It would be helpful if you could provide a pointer to the warning. Looie496 (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by FeelSunny

Guys, when an admin comes to an article, and in two messages makes a threat to block users in packs - this is called "going postal". And here, thesame admin is going to topic ban an active editor that has added tons of useful information to the article, virtually making it look like it does now.

Yes, the post that FPAS incriminates to HW looks bad, as a "batteground spirit" one. The only real reason, though, is HW is alive and frank. There are dozens of editors out there with the same battleground type of behavior, who normally conceal their intentions, but may well coordinate their disruptive activity, and involve in any kind of illegal activity to push their POV.

However, only the 3-4 most misbehaving members of this Eastern European mailing list out of a dozen may now get a topic ban. Now here an admin just makes a three months topic ban for one wrong edit. Plus, HW was one of the editors that helped to protect the article from the anti-Russian mailing list members, and he was attacked by them numerous times in "2008 SO war" and other articles. And now he gets banned for "battleground behavior." No matter how much FPAS is sad about the initial unwelcoming attitude of the article editors towards him, his decision in this case is absolutely not fair.FeelSunny (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File the appropriate reports and gather evidence on the other ones then. I'm not going to go looking around just on your say so, nor am I capable of reading your mind as to figure out exactly who you are talking about.

In the vernacular, (frankness, if you prefer) put up, or shut up.--Tznkai (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Result concerning appeal of topic ban

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

If I understand the basic argument here, HistoricWarrior007, aside from having an unfortunate username that suggests he is here to do battle instead of build a collaborative encyclopedia, claims the community at large is against this topic ban. The community at large has abandoned the topic area because of irritating partisans. I see no reason to believe that HistoricWarrior007 is not one of them. I see evidence that not only has HistoricWarrior007 has not left his rather strong opinions at the door, but has let it infect his work. I see excellent reason to extend the topic ban even wider, or to boot HistoricWarrior007 off the project entirely. Appeal denied.--Tznkai (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Unsigned Anon

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

Request concerning Mr Unsigned Anon

User requesting enforcement:
Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions

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

[6] Here he acknowledges that his conduct could get him banned

[7] Here, he calls me a racist.

[8] Here, he uses gratuitous vulgarity.

[9] Here again he uses gratuitous vulgarity.

[10] Here, he refers to me as a "retard" and a "moron" and also implies that he has other Wiki accounts.

[11] Here, he rambles on and makes some strange reference to “night of the long blades”

[12] Here, he calls me "ignorant" and a "moron"

[13] Here, he makes inquiries about my race

[14] Here, he accuses me of working for the Israeli government and also makes derogatory accusations based on alleged demographics

[15] Here, he asks me about the weather in Brooklyn based on his belief that I live there.

[16] Here, he makes reference to my bank account on the Gaza discussion page

[17] Here, he taunts me to engage him in an edit war

[18] revert of sourced material

[19] revert of sourced material

[20] revert

[21] revert of sourced material

[22] removal of sourced edits

[23] removal of sourced edits

[24] removal of sourced edits

[25] removal of sourced edits. Preceding four reverts were effectuated within a span of ten minutes.

[26] His explanation for revert. "Cant understand why the lead is filled upp with pov stuff even if ballansing out eachother. Start a section or continue to use the reportin other sections. I put the stuff I cut in talk for use els (sic)"

[27]

[28] His explanation for revert. "removed israeli side exlanation that is undue weight in lead."

[29] His explanation for revert. "Removing israels intention to not cooperate. Its intention is bring undue weight and can be presented futher down."

[30] revert of sourced material

[31] revert of sourced material. Preceeding 2 reverts effectuated within 20 minutes of each other.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

[32] Warning by Tyw7 (talk · contribs)

[33] Warning by Looie496 (talk · contribs)

[34] Warning by Looie496 (talk · contribs)

[35] Warning by Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs)

[36] Warning by enigmaman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Permanent block, topic ban. Has contributed no substantive edits of his own except for extensive reverting. Engages in uncivil behavior and admits to socking.

Additional comments by Jiujitsuguy (talk):
I am requesting a lengthy topic ban or block. Mr Unsigned Anon has engaged in uncivil, discourteous conduct with some racial overtones. In addition, he has engaged in a pattern of disruptive conduct and relentless reverts of sourced material. This despite being warned that his disruptive conduct could get him blocked.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest gem that Mr Unsigned Anon just recently left on my Talk page [37]That comment resulted in a 24 hour block issued by BozMo (talk | contribs)here [38] Mr Unsigned Anon seemed proud of his actions calling it "fun" here [39] and taunted the issuing Admin to issue him a lengthier block here [40]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also inclined to believe that he has multiple accounts based on statements that he made here [41].--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Mr Unsigned Anon Notified [42]

Discussion concerning Mr Unsigned Anon

There is not an allegation anymore. He admitted to losing his last password and starting a new account. It sounds like he expects a block and he is simply screwing around/being really inappropriate lately. This should be a pretty easy one to close out and I don't think it will hurt his feelings.Cptnono (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Unsigned Anon

Historical Revisionism and Islamic Anti-Semitism at Wikipedia

Well, thats it fellow editors. Before I get banned I leve this litle thing, by our user Jiujitsuguy (Jiujitsuguy). It might explain his behavour. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

I have found Mr Unsigned Anon's contributions to be largely unhelpful and difficult to follow (the latter because of a language issue perhaps?) He is also too quick to revert and often makes provocative comments that do nothing to encourage collaboration. I would support a ban from the Gaza War article for him.

I also think that banning Jiujistu Guy and Stellarkid from the Gaza War article (for revert-warring and editing without regard for NPOV) would be a good step in the right direction as well. Perhaps then, other less trigger happy and aggressive editors could get some real work done on the article. Tiamut^talk 12:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tiamut has it exactly right - except that Stellarkid's editing without regard for NPOV (deleting relevant RS cited text) extends to the whole I-P topic so his ban should apply to that whole topic; I haven't looked at any of JiujitsuGuy's edits so I can't comment on his at this time. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fun is good, very bad spelling is very bad, and "Mr Unsigned Anon" is a great user name. MUA, if you are permabanned can I have it, I liek it. Meowy 17:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Stellarkid

I was going to stay out of this one since Mr Unsigned Anon has put out an AE on me, above. But with all the discussion going on about me, I feel I have to respond to this one despite any perceived COI. In the little more than a month since Mr UA has come on the scene, editing about 2 articles, he has been responsible for taking a number of other editors to various wiki forums for discipline, and to second Tiamut above, his contributions are "largely unhelpful" "difficult to follow'" and he "often makes provocative comments." Add to this a tendency to use slash and burn tactics and blatantly edit from his particular POV, his presence in the area has done nothing to encourage a collaborative atmosphere. Totally disagree with Tiamut in relation to her comments about Juijitsuguy and myself. We neither of us may be perfect but we try not to edit-war or to edit without regard to NPOV. Tiamut shares a POV with Mr UA, and I with Juijitsuguy but the answer to better editing is not destroying the competition but using the competition to build better and more neutral and informative articles. None of us is perfect, but Juijitsuguy (and I like to think myself) is different, in that he is working from good faith effort. Mr Anon, on the other hand, I am convinced, based on his "provocative" comments, disruptive editing in the month+ he has been here, is not working from good faith but deliberately trying to disrupt the project Stellarkid (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment by Jiujitsuguy

The blocks imposed on Mr Unsigned Anon were imposed for conduct that occurred after this AE was filed. It is inconceivable to me that a block of one week is sufficient to address his borish and vulgar conduct. The described conduct is beyond uncivil. It is strange and bizzare. He was well aware that he was under the threat of sanction and his behavior only worsened. Is this the action of a rational person? Add to this the fact that he's made not one original constructive edit. His editing ability appears limited to relentless reverts as evidenced by the partial list of diffs that I've compiled. There's also an issue of socking which he has admitted and is also listed among the compiled diffs. Subsequent to filing this AE, I found this page as further evidene of socking. Mr Unsigned Anon has also been issued several warnings including those of sanctions governing Israel/Palestine disputes. These warnings have all been documented and diffs for same have been set forth. It is also worthy of note that he has not a single defender. All who chose to comment on this matter, even those who share similar viewpoints with him, have agreed that his conduct was disruptive and in fact, only worsened with time. Therefore, a one week ban is an insufficient remedy to address the conduct of an "editor" who has demonstrated a total lack of regard for his fellow editors and the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. A much lengthier ban is in order here.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Mr Unsigned Anon

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

Action appears redundant with this user's block, but hold in the meantime.--Tznkai (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The block is only one week in length. Sanctions are placed after considering a much longer time frame. Discussion should, on that basis, continue as normal. AGK 01:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to watch his behavior coming off of his block before making any actions.--Tznkai (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed, does not appear to be interested in collaborative encyclopedia building.--Tznkai (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Rockpocket

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

No action. --El on ka 22:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement: --Domer48_'fenian' 21:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Rockpocket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: Revert #1 Revert #2 Revert #3
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: 2 reverts in less than 24 hours, which is a violation of 1RR. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Unsure

Additional comments

Their actions on the third revert here, resulting as it does in the removal of the text I added here from the article could be viewed as gaming. Having added the text, their removal is tantamount to a revert. Regardless they did go over the 1RR limit with this text being removed.

Discussion regarding this request

Comment - These complaints are tedious. Rockpocket is trying, in good faith, to improve the article, and has put a lot of work in. Some editors are more concerned with the letter of the law than the spirit. I'd rather have an editor who actively tries to collaborate but technically breaks 1RR, than editors who fastidiously avoid 1RR but avoid collaboration. Mooretwin (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, isn't this nice. Lets actually discuss what happened here. I explained my intentions in advance on the talk page to rewrite the article to remove the awful editorializing that promotes a POV. I'd already done the same thing on the Peter Hart article. There was a general acceptance that this was a good idea, with the exception of Domer, who expressed his personal opinion that one historian's analysis was invalid and this we needed to state this. Yesterday I spent 5 hours reading and writing a new, fully referenced and balanced conclusion section which Domer reverted in one revert [43]. He was warned that this was disruptive by Elonka [44], which I tend to agree with. I reverted back, explained and invited discussion (explicitly stating that I did not want anyone get get involved in a revert war [45].) In response Domer provided his usual alphabet soup [46] and reinserted the critiques on the historian he has an issue with. Originally I thought this was a revert, but he actually added slightly different criticism (lifted from the same attack piece as the original stuff I removed) thereby avoiding a revert, which is interesting if we are talking about gaming.

I went back and summarized the new content in a neutral way (adding material) and hid the inappropriate critiques as per the consensus over the last few weeks on the talk page. This was not a revert, either in principle nor in practice. This may or may not technically be a revert, I really don't know. However, when trying to overhaul an article in this way, such edits are going to happen. I would hope anyone, with a modicum of understanding of WP:N, should see the pattern of edits here and appreciate what this "report" is all about.

I don't know what else to say here. It appears clear that Domer has worked out how to laywer around these 1RR edits across a number of articles. He routinely makes one revert a day to ensure his preferred version remains and is quick to report anyone else that is not as clever at rule evasion. I came in from outside, used the talk page as we are asked to, I spent time researching a subject I knew little about and care about even less, all in an attempt to rescue a balanced nuanced article from the POV mess that had been created. More I did this with the advance support of most contributors on the talk page. Quite how one does that without taking more than one "action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part" I really don't know. If this is the purpose of the Trouble's ArbCom remedy then I give up, I really do. Rockpocket 21:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ok, so after a big preamble, you went over the 1RR. Now personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith aside that is what were here for. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you here for, to ensure those who don't accede to your POV are taken out of the equation one way or another? Personally, I'm here to write neutral balanced articles, not see who can manipulate the rules to ensure their POV is maintained. Whatever. If someone can tell me exactly what I did wrong here - having volunteered most of my weekend to sort out your mess - then I'd be happy to fix it and be on my way. But I think you really need to take a step back and ask yourself what exactly you are trying to achieve here. Because a neutral, balanced encyclopaedia sure ain't it. Rockpocket 22:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article-in-question should've been 'protected'. A harsh approach, but it stabilizes an article. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between assumption of good faith, which was done, and recognition of bad faith, which is what this is. Rockpocket has made a concerted effort, both in the article and on the talk page to reach NPOV on this artilce. Domer first reverted everything [47] and then re-inserted his pov back into one of the sections [48]. No discussion, just flashing 'rules' at people [49] [50] [51] in the form of threats. He then tries to get the other editors blocked in order to get his way. Be under no illusion mods, this is part of concerted strategy at work in a number of articles. There is absolutely no way Rockpocket should face sanction for good faith and constructive editing.

Also, without getting overly personal, is it appropriate that Domer has attempted to get other users blocked no less than 3 times in the last week alone? First provoke an edit war and then try to get the "competing" editor blocked. This, I'm sure is not what this page is intended for. Jdorney (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Tznkai, below. The first edit was a revert. No doubt about it. Beyond that, there is no confusion. The goal was not to revert anything, the goal was to continue with the series of edits to turn the article into a balanced, nuanced read, rather than the POV mess it was. Were there subsequent additional "technical" reverts in there? It appears so. The point, however, is that 1RR is one thing when it comes to stopping revert warring. In that sense it levels the playing field. However, one editor has come in for a 3rd opinion, gone to the talk page, explained their reasoning extensively in advance and then was in the process of overhauling an article with the support of most contributors. In contrast another invested editor, in isolation and without any significant support, games the system to try and get that editor blocked. Is leveling that playing field really what we are trying to achieve here? Again, if you would like to tell me what edit I should make to resolve this and improve the article, then please do so and we can all go and do something more productive. I put to you that those two things are mutually exclusive. Rockpocket 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to Tznkai, below. Perhaps, yes. In fact, I think I mentioned I was going to add that on the talk page, but then forgot. I'll certainly keep that in mind in future. However, Domer alone has made it perfectly clear that he will not accept these edits, and indicated his intention to add back such criticism. He backed off his initial attempts to do the same thing on the Peter Hart article because - due to BLP - he was unable to continue to revert war over it. Instead, he has moved the criticism to this article and apparently will continue to add it here. It seems to me the more relevant part of the ArbCom remedy on this instance is not 1RR but "All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions." I came here as an outside opinion from the Hart article [52] hving never edited the article before. Pretty much everyone except Domer has reacted positively to my efforts. How long are we going to permit invested contributors to control content by gaming the system? Do we need a formalized way of establishing what outside opinions say, to stop this reoccurring? Rockpocket 23:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tznkai, no it couldn't have been prevented by use of a tag or sandbox, because Domer would have reverted anyway in order to promote his own pov. That's how he operates. There is a degree of bad faith here that has to really be investigated to be believed. Jdorney (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Example of Domer's attitude to editors who wish to go against his POV: In response to John, he quite literally dismisses him: treats him with apparent contempt ("Ill simply ignore their [sic] drive-by remarks"). Mooretwin (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problems with Rock's conduct at the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend closure of this AE report. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Elonka, so Rockpocket has to revert his own changes, even if they are constructive edits, if they could be construed as a revert? That is not how you're going to create decent articles and prevent edit wars I'm afarid. Quite the opposite. A good faith NPOV edit and a bad faith POV edit are not equal and should not treated equally for the sake of procedure. If they are then anyone with a POV just needs to get efficient at working the system to get all their edits through. That way lies the end of WP. Jdorney (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's more than 1 revert in 24 hours (and I'm still fuzzy on whether the second and third edits were reverts or not), then yes, it would be helpful if Rockpocket would reverse his own change. We're not going to block someone for accidentally going over 1RR in the heat of the moment, as long as they realize their error and then fix it in a timely manner. As for whether or not the edit is constructive, well, by its very nature a revert means that there is disagreement about whether the change is constructive or not. One editor's "constructive change" is another editor's "POV mess". Ultimately, the goal of 1RR is to get editors to stop using revert as an editing tool. A revert may be a quick "I don't like that edit" option, but reverts are not effective in implementing long-lasting changes in an article. The best way to proceed here, is to take the long view. Those who are able to moderate their behavior and edit in a careful manner should do so, and that will help administrators to identify those editors who are not able to do so, so we can remove them from the mix. --El on ka 00:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Elonka. If I can put this to bed by making further edits, I'm perfectly happy to do so. But someone is going to have to tell me exactly what exactly I should write, because I don't wish to add critical third party opinions about a BLP (Hart) that, with the apparent exception of Domer, everyone appears to agree is highly inappropriate. I fully accept it was naive of me to continuing to edit this article when it should have been clear that I risked being reported for 1RR. I've learned that lesson. Bear in mind, the sanctions direct editors to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions, what are we to do when such opinions are not only ignored, but purposefully countered by editors determined to keep their preferred version? Should this issue persist, I'll come to AE myself with a request for probationary sanctions in advance. Rockpocket 00:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, I'd say to back off the changes in the diffs above of Reverts #2 and #3. Though when you say "everyone appears to agree is highly inappropriate", do you have a diff? Because if someone is making changes to an article to bring it in accordance with a clear talkpage or noticeboard consensus, that probably shouldn't count as a revert. --El on ka 01:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support when I proposed it in advance: [53][54][55]. Support when I justified the edits afterwards [56][57][58][59] Until, perhaps coincidentally, a few seconds ago, Domer was the only editor who expressed disagreement with the edits (with the exception of the "suspected informers" issue, which is still under perfectly civil and constructive discussion). Rockpocket 01:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there appears to be consensus that the article needs to be reworked. The diffs that you presented, however, do not seem to be saying anything about the issue of the Hart source. That's why I'm saying that it might be wise to rollback those two edits (the reverts that are cited at the beginning of this thread). It will de-escalate the situation for now, and the content question can continue to be discussed on the talkpage. --El on ka 03:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the issue of Hart was absolutely central (see [60].) It was this issue that I set out to address and this issue that the wide agreement was expressed. If the consensus is not for the balanced treatment of Hart, then I don't know what it was for. I'm really uncomfortable rolling back those edits, though, because I consider them a coatrack of BLP issues (see the parallel discussion on the Peter Hart talk page). We simply should not adding huge selective swathes of critical comment about a living individual for the sole purpose of discrediting their work (this is even admitted on the talk page). I'd rather be blocked than add that material back myself. However, I will recuse myself from the article for the next 24hrs to let the other editors there come to their own decision. Rockpocket 05:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rockpocket was not the first admin to try to promote NPOV, but he is the first to make any kind of tangible progress. All of the others were scared off by threats of blocking. If this pattern is allowed to continue, no progress will ever be made at this or several other articles.

So once again, it makes no sense to order a revert of constructive edits in favour of edit-warring ones. I suggest admins do not take my word for it but go and look for yourselves. Jdorney (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you're speaking of tag-teaming. How would one proove it? How would one defend against it? GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator, I'm happy to block anyone who is violating NPOV, as long as there is proof of such. For example: Are one or more editors repeatedly adding unsourced information? Are they using unreliable sources? Are they editing against a clear talkpage or noticeboard consensus? If so, show me diffs, and I will take action. But simply saying someone is editing in a POV or tag team manner is not helpful. Instead, if their POV is obvious, prove it: Get opinions from a dispute noticeboard, show the result of an RfC, come up with something that clearly shows that there's a consensus against the POV edits. But don't just say that an editor is pushing a POV, because then that's one editor's opinion against another, and that's not something that an administrator can take action on. --El on ka 01:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's happening here is that one editor in particular is giving absolute credence to one source, which confirms his POV and using everything in his power to remove or undermine another source, which doesn't. It is my understanding that we are supposed to report neutrally on what is in the sources, giving equal weight to each.

As I've said this is clear to anyone who has a look at the talk page. What is needed is Admin discretion. But ok, since you asked for diffs. Here for instance, talking up one source and talking down another.[61]. Or here, [62], inserting a whole load of text the only purpose of which is to undermine another source. And worst of all (recently) here [63] where he reverted, in its entirety, a day's work by Rockpocket, precisely because it was giving equal weight to each source and not arguing for a particular interpretation. What makes all of this much worse is a complete refusal to discuss the issues at hand. Instead, people are threatenend with blocking, as in here [64] or simply dismissed as here [65].

Ok, that's NPOV, re use of this page as a gaming tactic. Examples from this article only, though there are many more, FIrst of all, most recently here [66], as you know, Domer has tried to get Rockpocket blocked. This might be fair if he had discussed the issues at hand, but he refused to do this. Most frustratingly of all are edits like this [67], where he not only refuses to discuss, but then claims to have discussed and declares he's going ahead with editing/reverting regardless. This what makes this case so important. Without a good moderator, this article is going no-where. Finally here [68] he got me blocked for defending a lead reached after careful discussion with the previous admin who was brought in to de-POV the article.

This is not about me, I don't care if got blocked. Actually I was happy to do it as it seems to have attracted the attention of more admins to the article. It's about this editor constantly using this page to try to eliminate other editors and "win" edit wars. By my count here [69], he has made four requests for blocking here on 1RR violations in the last week alone. ANd this is not unusual. In each of these cases, this editor and also usually (sorry to name names but Big Dunc) have provoked the edit wars in question by reverting other people's work and then come straight here to get them blocked. Sorry for being so long-winded, but this needs to be addressed.Jdorney (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is going off-track from the AE thread, but let me try to address your post: I'm sorry, but it's just not compelling evidence. I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but instead I'm trying to point out that to you editors who are in the middle of a dispute, everything is probably "obvious". You probably think that any sane person could just take a look at the talkpage and see things clear as day. But trust me, it's not as clear to someone who's not familiar with the situation. That's why when I said diffs, I meant diffs of a clear talkpage consensus. Example: Say there's an article about tomato juice, with one side saying "fruit!" And the other side saying "vegetable!" And the talkpage is full of obscure sources which each side says proves their point. But to an outside observer or administrator, the talkpage is a mass of text, with sources that we're not familiar with, talking about a subject we don't know much about (and probably don't care much about, either). What does stand out in those situations though, is if we can spot a clear talkpage consensus, with a bunch of short posts where multiple editors are saying that they agree with a course of action. Or, it's easy for us to review a brief noticeboard discussion where uninvolved editors are mostly weighing in with similar opinions. So far when I look at Talk:Dunmanway killings though, I can't see the subtleties yet. I see that there's a consensus that the article needs to be reworked. That's it. If there's a consensus for anything else, it's non-obvious, and will probably take more time on my (or some other admin's) part to wade through it. That's one of the reasons that we keep repeating over and over, "Get outside opinions". Or here's a more practical example: Go to WP:ANI. Pick some thread at random, about articles or a topic area that you know nothing about, with editor names that you've never heard of. Now, try to read that thread and make a decision on "what should be done". Most likely you will rapidly discover that it is extremely difficult to sort through content disputes when you're coming in cold. It's not always clear who's "right" or "wrong", or who's pushing a POV, vs. who's resisting the POV-pushers. Does this make sense? --El on ka 03:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I get what you're saying. It is not easy to tell from outside. Actually that's the point of flinging rules and policy at people - to confuse the issue. Here we have an established, respected admin, the latest of many, who is obviously knowledgable about the area and interested in the article. He now has to face blocking because of one editor whose entire contribution to WP consists of edit warring and requests for blocking of other users. What I'm saying is that he should have discretion to use admin powers to enforce NPOV. You may say that he can't do this because he is "involved", but the discussion clearly shows that only an involved admin will be able to grasp the issues. Jdorney (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Rock faces blocking is because he breached 1RR nothing to do with any other editor, he is responsible for his own edits and as you say he is around long enough to know the way it works here. If he is editing the article then he is not a neutral admin he is just another editor, if he wanted to remain neutral he shouldn't have got into a slanging match with Domer. He is far from neutral on this issue.BigDunc 10:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In responce to Tznkai below, yes it could have been avoided, I did suggest a solution. As for Elonka, they ignore Rocks removal of whole sections of referenced text, and still post a comment on my talk for adding it back. The fact that see claims that the second revert is unclear, illustartes her double standard which has resulted in me asking and then tell her to stay of my talk page. Now Rock violated 1RR, simple as! as Tznkai has said above this is a little odd, and people get touchy about non-standard use of blocks, that Elonka has no problem with double standards should also cause some "concern."--Domer48_'fenian' 10:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so mods you can enforce these two user's gaming of the rules or you can let the admin get on with cleaning up the article. Choice is yours. Jdorney (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not calling for a block of any user and I am not gaming the rules, Rock is, to use your words, established, respected admin so he is well aware of the rules about 1RR, being involved with the whole Troubles debate, he is not some innocent who stumbled across the article and made changes and was caught unaware, ~~he even said on the page that he was going to revert again, which was a blatant disregard of the community sanctions.~~ Now this has turned into a case of shoot the messenger. Instead of whining about other editors if he held his hands up we could move on from this mess and get back to the the encyclopedia. BigDunc 13:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should revert the article back to before the disputes began, then work things out on the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That depends, revert to when? If we revert to before Rockpocket's edits we lose all the good work (and it is very good work) in not only dealing with npov but also clearing up the article and making it more coherent and easier to read. If editors have legitimate problems with these edits let them raise them properly on talk instead of reverting.Jdorney (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loose those edits, nay. Just have them 'transfer' to a talkpage 'or' a sandbox. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)I believe editors are still confused at the meaning of 1RR. The policy states Some editors may choose voluntarily to follow a one-revert rule: If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them. This does not grant the right of 1 revert every 24 hours. It means that if you have been reverted, stop and discuss, period. I believe that we should be more explicit in the interpretation of 1RR in that it should preclude any reverts of a revert regardless of the length of time involved. This encourages stable articles, and discussions on the Talk page to reach consensus. It also prevent tag-teaming and other gaming. Perhaps if the policy doc was more explicit or had a policy of NRR (No ReReverting) NROAR (No Reverts of a Revert) DRR (Don't ReRevert) or something similar, we'd spend less time here.... --HighKing (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in this topic area (Troubles, aka Britain/Ireland articles) are under a different kind of 1RR restriction, as a result of an ArbCom case and subsequent community discussions. See {{Troubles restriction}} for more info. --El on ka 18:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai in all honesty, this is a straight forward report. Now I’m not going to even bother addressing Elonka’s comments below or the others comments above. The diff’s are there to support the report that’s it. Your right with your comments above “people get touchy about non-standard use of blocks.” --Domer48_'fenian' 20:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a game. Admins are not referees. Thsi is about improving the articles. Would blocking Rochpocket stop edit wars or encourage them? Would it help stabilise the content of the article? Would it help improve the content? If not then why block? Jdorney (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tznkai below, very good advice. BigDunc 19:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good advice. Rockpocket 19:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with a 1 second/minute block to acknowledge the violation and then just move on. My only concern was that blocks would be slective. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, because that would definitely serve a preventative purpose, right? The "violation" is fully acknowledged. I know what I did, I know why it was reported and I know how to stop it happening again. I simply dispute the application of this remedy to what was obviously not edit-warring but part of an ongoing process to improve a problem article, with a consensus of agreement on the talk page. But don't fear, it will not happen again (just as it has never happened previously). Rockpocket 02:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is an ongoing discussion at ANI about whether or not the Troubles case's remedies should be modified, to additionally authorize discretionary sanctions in this topic area. Anyone with an opinion on the matter is invited to comment at: Wikipedia:ANI#Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles. --El on ka 17:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result regarding this request

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

The 1RR restriction is meant to avoid edit wars, bypass the sock puppetry problems, and otherwise level the playing field, hopefully pushing all editors to the talk pages rather than the article itself. Generally, a string of consecutive edits, or edits clearly meant to be consecutive are counted as one edit for the purposes of revert restrictions. The first two listed reverts do seem to be in fact, reversions in that they undid another editor's writing in whole or part. I am however holding this request since there seems to be some confusion.--Tznkai (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could this have been avoided, say with the use of a sandbox or the {{major edit}} tag?--Tznkai (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a topic where such an approach had any prospect of success we wouldn't be being discussing here, would we? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first action is definitely a revert, though the second and third appear to be more complex, and I'm finding it difficult to tell if they're reverts or not. In any case, I'm not sure a block would be appropriate in this situation, since Rockpocket seems to have been making a good faith effort to edit the article. There are also some extenuating circumstances, in that Domer48 had made a sweeping change with his own revert today, wiping out several days of work (much of which was Rockpocket's) in one sweep.[70] Domer's action appears much more disruptive than any technical second revert which Rockpocket might have made subsequent to that. Perhaps the best way through this would be to give Rockpocket the opportunity to re-examine and reverse any action of his which was regarded as a revert, and then we tell everyone to take a day off? --El on ka 23:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some points:

I think it's about time we re-assessed the purpose and effectiveness of the 1RR restriction here. It's designed to prevent revert warring where there is no progress or discussion, not collaborative editing where some changes are undone and others revised, etc. At the limit, the overly literal and strict application of 1RR is unhelpful to the goals of Wikipedia and the spirit of wiki. It also risks scaring off anyone not willing to be masochistically dedicated to mastering not only the technical aspects of editing, but the intricacies of what exactly is allowed and what is not. WP:IAR should be applied as appropriate. I don't see how sanctioning Rock is going to achieve anything here. The aim of the restrictions is to move articles forward through collaborative editing, not to enable the blocking of attempts at progress.
One solution to avoid constantly having these AE enforcement debates is to work entirely in a sandbox until consensus is achieved, avoiding 1RR issues. This worked quite well at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/draft in redrafting the lede of PIRA, albeit it was mighty hard work and required an engaged moderator.
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/The Plague is still open, if anyone has any genius ideas on how to improve things to make these areas more friendly to good-faith efforts to develop articles, whilst still holding revert/revert/revert wars in check, and less susceptible to raising the letter of rules over the spirit, contrary to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:IAR. Rd232 ^talk 00:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend closing this report as "no action". It was filed by Domer on Rockpocket, and it looks like gaming the system, as well as being a bit pointy. The sequence of events was this: At Dunmanway killings, Domer wiped out several days of edits in his own revert.[71] This naturally caused confusion on the article, and he has been warned for this. Rockpocket then, perhaps unwisely, chose to partially revert Domer's action, but he was within his rights since it was his first revert of the day. However, when he then continued editing, and modified two sentences, Domer claims that they were "reverts" and immediately filed this 1RR report. This does not seem to me to be acting in good faith, and it is not the first frivolous 1RR report that Domer has filed. Now, I agree that it was not particularly wise of Rockpocket to immediately jump back into editing the article after Domer's large-scale revert. But Rockpocket has acknowledged this and voluntarily recused from editing the article for 24 hours. This seems sufficient resolution to me. Let's close this report as "no action", and move on. --El on ka 16:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happiest if we can close this report no action. I encourage the commentators to hold their tongues for a few, and for the participants to come to some sort of agreement. I again suggest for large scale changes, which reverts do not play well with, to use and abide by the {{major edit}} tag, or in the alternative, use the talk page to discuss changes and a sandbox to preview them before touching the main article itself. We should all be able to agree that stagnation in articles is a bad thing - and quite frankly any time we're writing about death in major conflict, having a position is the norm - not the exception. The charge we have on Wikipedia is to do our best to work past it, which includes working past dwelling on the biases of others and working around them, not against them. I have to some extent, seen all the editors in this discussion in action, and I believe all are capable and willing work forward.

Are the parties willing to move forward on some such understanding?--Tznkai (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hetoum I

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

Various socks blocked, sockmaster ban extended to indef. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Hetoum I

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 08:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
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:
Not required

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

[72] 1rv per week restriction by Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
[73] 6 months block by MuZemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Additional comments by Grandmaster:
Hetoum I (talk · contribs) was placed on 1rv per week restriction back in 2007. He was blocked a couple of times for violating his restriction, and after that stopped using his main account, using instead anonymous IPs and sock accounts to edit war across multiple pages and vandalize. The evidence about massive disruption by this user is presented here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I/Archive. As result of the above SPI request, Hetoum was banned for 6 months. However, he evaded his block again, this time using the account of Brunotheborat (talk · contribs). According to checkuser, Brunotheborat is a sock of Hetoum: [74] Since Hetoum shows no intention to stop his disruptive activity, I think it is time to reset his ban to permanent. Grandmaster 08:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another sock of Hetoum, Plainsriver (talk · contribs). Can we place the articles Khanate of Erevan and Khanate of Nakhichevan on permanent semi-protection, because of extremely high amount of vandalism by this user? Grandmaster 05:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[75]

Discussion concerning Hetoum I

Statement by Hetoum I

Comments by other editors

Grandmaster, in light of your newly-found desire to have restrictions applied only where there is actual disruption (rather than simply the breaking of arbitrary rules that involve no actual disruption), please state what the disruption here was. Meowy 16:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster is POV-pushing also here! Anyone of you, please, can explain me where is the vandalism made by HetoumI at Khanate of Erevan or Khanate of Nakhijevan?? I see only some addings there, which seems to be supported by sources. Hopefully even Perfect will see the difference between adding the Armenian name for Erevan Khanate and... vandalism! Andranikpasha (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same as adding Azerbaijani name for Democratic Republic of Armenia. Is it relevant there? But regardless of content issues, Hetoum was not supposed to be socking, mass reverting pages, and vandalising. And now he is not supposed to edit Wikipedia at all. Grandmaster 07:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Hetoum I

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

Per the confirmation of socking by Versageek and the above referenced prior sanctions, I have blocked Hetoum I for a period of one year, which is the maximum term a sanction derived from an Arbitration case may extend. Community bans may be indefinite and are handled at WP:AN. MBisanz ^talk 19:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And since he's been found to be socking yet again after this decision (see User:Fazeri), I have set the block to indef. I assume, as a matter of course, that this user has now reached the stage where no admin would ever want to unblock him again, so, unless somebody objects, he is now indefinitely community banned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - To Grandmaster, Meowy and Andranikpasha above: please stop this mutual sniping; it's unproductive. Grandmaster, for the sake of correctness, please don't use the word "vandalism" when what you're dealing with is socking, those are different things. Meowy and Andranikpasha, stop railing against routine ban enforcement. You may not like the fact that Hetoum is banned, but he is banned, and that means his sock activity will be blocked and reverted, period. Grandmaster is very welcome to report such incidences here, and if you continue sniping at him simply for doing so, this will be treated as disruptive conduct on your part. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

QuackGuru

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

QuackGuru blocked 2 weeks for topic ban violation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning QuackGuru

User requesting enforcement: DigitalC (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans & ban notice

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

[76] - QuackGuru edits Quackery, adding information about D.D. Palmer, the founder of Chiropractic, below "He founded the field of chiropractic..." and directly below a reference tag containing "History of Chiropractic • Carl Cleveland, Jul '52". This article also has other mentions of Chiropractic.
[77] - QuackGuru adds information to a section of Vaccine controversy, adding information directly after a sentence that mentions Chiropractic. The topic is directly related to Chiropractic, and Chiropractic is mentioned about a dozen times in that section of the article.
[78] - while this edit is uncontroversial, QuackGuru is supposed to not be editing these pages at all. This article Trick or Treatment is about a book that "evaluates the scientific evidence for acupuncture, homeopathy, herbal medicine, and chiropractic", and is therefore a topic directly related to Chiropractic.
[79] - QuckGuru's ban specifically mentioned QuackWatch. This diff is the same article as above, Trick or Treatment. He adds a link to a review hosted at QuackWatch. The book review that he added again specifically mentions Chiropractic, as does the article.
[80] - is one of QuackGuru's several edits to Naturopathy. This edit is again below a sentence mentioning chiropractic. The article itself mentions Chiropractic several times, again making it directly related to Chiropractic.
[81] - again editing at Quackery, this time adding text which specifically mentions Chiropractic.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy): Not applicable

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block for evading topic ban, OR clarification and extension of topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: From my reading of the ban, s/he was to be banned from "any topics dealing with Chiropractic", and the above topics obviously dealt with Chiropractic. S/he purposefully ignored the ban and continued to edit those articles. This is a sample of diffs, and is not exhaustive. QuackGuru has made many edits at some of the articles listed above. This user has been blocked several times, including a block for 2 weeks for violating the principles of discretionary sanctions[82],[83]. DigitalC (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [84].

Discussion concerning QuackGuru

Statement by QuackGuru

Comments by other editors

There is no question that QG violated his topic ban and the block is justified. I do have an explanatory comment on SarekOfVulcan's comment below. I'm not sure if sandbox notes should be included in the ban, but they may well be. Whatever, there is enough other evidence to justify the block. FYI, the particular wording "quackery is more prevalent within chiropractic than other healthcare professions" is not an attack by QG on chiropractic, but a quote from research by chiropractic authors. It's a fact that even they admit. You can read about it here: Chiropractic_controversy_and_criticism#Ethics_and_claims. Just thought you might like to know this. It doesn't change the fact that QG's block is justified. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification. Even sourced appropriately, it would be a clear violation of his topic ban were it added to an article at the moment. I appreciate the input -- think there's anything left to discuss here, or should someone go ahead and close? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason for keeping this open, so it can probably be archived. Thanks for dealing with the situation. Let's hope he learns something from this. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning QuackGuru

Diffs #1 and #6 clearly violate the topic ban on chiropractic, so I'm imposing a two-week block, consonant with the previous one. Their recent addition of "sandbox notes" concerning chiropractic may also violate the topic ban, especially this one stating quackery is more prevalent within chiropractic than other healthcare professions.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Brews ohare

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

Request concerning Brews ohare

User requesting enforcement: Dicklyon (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare topic banned ("banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months")
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare restricted ("...repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.")

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

[85] This most recent, and hundreds of others (including a dozen on that page today alone), edits on essays and guidelines about how to write scientific articles in wikipedia should be interpreted as within the scope of talk pages of physics topics, broadly construed. Since his restriction, Brews ohare has done nothing but carry on his voluminous fights and disruption at a meta level, by going to wikipedia space instead of article space.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)

[86] Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion_2 In a 'request for clarification' just a few days ago, Brews was sternly warned: "I would tend to agree that the specific incident of pointing to the talk page of a banned topic while discussing policy was not a violation of the letter of the sanction. That being said, it drags the spirit of the sanction into a dark alley and beats it senseless before having its way with it. Brews ohare, you would do well to listen to the oft repeated advice to stop beating the dead horse and move on. I would rather not have to tighten your restriction or impose new ones, but if you insist on pushing an agenda (however right you believe it may be) then we will have no choice." Brews's reaction there was not contructive or promising.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Clarify the "broadly construed" of the topic ban, and block if he keeps this up.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Numerous editors and admins have advised Brews ohare to find a constructive way to contribute to wikipedia, but he will not let go of the troubles that got him sanctioned. He provides an ongoing disruption by pouring his energy into trying to change policies around the editing of scientific articles (physics and electronics being his main expertise); he often outshouts all other editors who are trying to have a discussion, as his contribs history as a whole will attest.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [87]

User talk:Brews ohare#Enforcement request notification

Discussion concerning Brews ohare

Statement by Brews ohare

An action is open here for clarification of the remedies imposed upon Brews ohare. Despite that open action, we have now a new Requests/Enforcement brought by Dicklyon, which properly belongs as part of that clarification proceeding, and indeed, cites as its justification a comment from the "Arbitrator views and discussion" segment of that proceeding as though this comment in a discussion thread were, in fact, the determination of that clarification process. The other diff provided as "evidence" of misbehavior is a contribution to a discussion of how WP articles might be written, and has no bearing at all upon "physics related" discussion, as Dicklyon is well aware. There is, thus, no evidence whatsoever to support this action.

In view of the subsidiary nature of this Requests/Enforcement, being properly part of the Clarification proceeding, the various arguments I have advanced in that proceeding are equally relevant here, and I hereby incorporate them in this proceeding. This Requests/Enforcement hearing cannot properly proceed until the Clarification proceeding is concluded, and therefore the present Requests/Enforcement should be refused. If the Clarification proceeding resolution ultimately appears to warrant an enforcement hearing, this Requests/Enforcement can be re-opened using the conclusions of that action instead of an intermediary comment from a discussion there, as is only proper. Furthermore, the restriction upon my activity imposed by Tznkai is an arbitrary and unsupported action that presumes upon the results of an open Clarification hearing, and should be overridden. Brews ohare (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Please indef block until Brews agrees to drop the stick and edit something else. He's gaming his topic ban, engaging in the same sort of disruptive behavior that lead to the sanction in the first place. Jehochman ^Talk 20:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really so pressing that it can't wait on arbcom finishing up with the request for clarification? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. John R. Brews was wrongly banned from editing all physics pages by an incompetent Arbcom. Brews has been working constructively with Michael C. Price, Likebox me and a few others on the essay WP:ESCA. Most of the people he works with strongly disagreed with what Brews was trying to edit in te speed of light article. Also the problem that led to the Arbcom case had to do with Brews dominating the talk page to get his way. There s no trace of that kind of behavior now. The editors on thepages that Brews is working on are not complaining at all. The people who are complaining are Jehochman, Dicklyon, Headbomb etc. who are not editing the pages Brews is editing now.

What they are doing is checking what Brews is doing, finding out that Brews is not editing the articles they have said Brews should edit (e.g. the article on Apple pie, making such suggestions to Brews is an act of incivility, i.m.o), instead they see that Brews is editing the essay I started WP:ESCA which they do not like, they get irritated and then they declare that to be disruptive behavior.

I hope that Arbcom would let engineering professor Brews edit in his area of expertise again asap. Note that fundamental physics is not his expertise and that this was a factor in the speed of light page. It would be a loss to Wikipedia if a retired Prof. cannot edit in his area of experise.

A note about Dicklyon. Dicklyon was editing together with Brews some articles in which Brews is an expert. There Dicklyon and Brews also did not go along. It could be that Arbcom chose Dicklyon's side in these conflicts, perhaps getting the impression that Brews is a physics crank. It was often Dicklyon who was behaving in an unreasonable way there, based on the physics. If you do not understand any physics and are a Wiki-Lawyer, then it may look like Dicklyon was behaving in a reasonable way.

E.g. what Dicklyon would often do was objecting to edits simply because he could not find a literal quote in a source using his text editor's search facility, while refusing to read/study the source. Collaborating with Dicklyon was extremely frustating to Brews. Dicklyon has continued to behave in this unreasonable way. Unfortunately, the Wiki rules allow Dicklyon to do this. Count Iblis (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reliance on WP:V is a typical way to push back on ideosyncratic original research. The rules don't just allow it, they encourage it. But it has never been about "a literal quote"; I did sometimes get impatient with reading his sources when he wouldn't point out where to find what he was referring to and I couldn't easily spot it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Brews never responded when I asked if I could address him by his real-life name; are you sure that's OK? Dicklyon (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brews has written an open letter to Jimbo Wales some time ago giving his real name and credentials. In fact, Headbomb argued that this open latter was itelf a infraction of his Arbcom restriction when he filed the AE last week.

About the "literal quotes" issue, I agree that if Brews edits a lot then it may be difficult to keep up. This domination of the talk pages was always the real problem. If we look at what Brews is doing now, then I don't see the relevance to that problem. After all, he is now collaborating with Michael C. Price, one of his strongest critics in the speed of light dispute. Count Iblis (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I would describe it as "collaborating". --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is not really causing any trouble there. You could easily let him write a new paragraph in the essay without causing much trouble. Can we say that about Jayjg? Count Iblis (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg is not topical. He isn't even remotely topical.--Tznkai (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Brews ohare

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

Brews ohare is restricted indefinitely from editing any page except for his own talk page, WP:AE responding to this thread, or the relevant arbitration discussion, OR to open a single thread on the administrator's message board of his choice contesting this decision. This is in lieu of a block for repeated violations of topic ban, misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, and also authorized under the general probation provision of the relevant Arbitration case. This will be revisited upon the closure of the relevant clarification thread.--Tznkai (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brews ohare, two things. One, this isn't a court, there herebys and such . Two, you've misunderstood the relevant procedures, opening a clarification does not exempt you in the meantime. If you'd prefer, I can block you outright, and a clerk will transcribe your comments for you on the necessary threads. That would after all, be a clearer example of well established procedure.--Tznkai (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: unconventional sanction for anon IP editor

This is a notification to fellow administrators active in Eastern European Arbcom enforcement that I have taken a somewhat unconventional step and placed an IP editor under an indefinite ban on editing while logged out [88].

The editor most recently active under 70.133.74.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (previously 71.137.192.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 71.137.193.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 70.133.67.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and multiple others, used over many months) has a long history of revert-warring on German–Polish topics, including the notorious lame issue of the ethnicity of Copernicus and similar topics. While the general legitimacy of logged-out editing is, of course, normally guaranteed by Wikipedia's rules, abusing logged-out editing to evade scrutiny and avoiding accountability during persistent problematic editing conduct is a form of disruption that should not be tolerated.

To make this editor more accountable for their conduct and to make their editing history and that of the affected articles more transparent, this editor is therefore now required to create an account and make any potentially contentious edits in this topic area only while logged in. Logged-out edits from this IP range that can be attributed to this individual may be treated like edits of a banned user, i.e. reverted immediately by any user. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:16, 15 November 2009 (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 576: / Line 576: @@
 <!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
 ::Brews ohare is restricted indefinitely from editing any page except for his own talk page, WP:AE responding to this thread, or the relevant arbitration discussion, OR to open a ''single'' thread on the administrator's message board of his choice contesting this decision. This is in lieu of a block for repeated violations of topic ban, misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, and also authorized under the general probation provision of the relevant Arbitration case. This will be revisited upon the closure of the relevant clarification thread.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 06:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
+:::Brews ohare, two things. One, this isn't a court, there herebys and such . Two, you've misunderstood the relevant procedures, opening a clarification does not exempt you in the meantime. If you'd prefer, I can block you outright, and a clerk will transcribe your comments for you on the necessary threads. That would after all, be a clearer example of well established procedure.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 18:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 ==Notification: unconventional sanction for anon IP editor ==