Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:12, 7 May 2014

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

<Announcement> Motion adopting new Discretionary sanctions procedure

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion:

That the updated Discretionary sanctions procedure supersedes and replaces all prior discretionary sanction provisions with immediate effect.

The updated Discretionary sanctions procedure can be read at the Motions page and at the DS information page.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 21:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Heracletus

Alerted as an action any editor can do, closing this as there is nothing to be done at AE at this stage. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Heracletus

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hasteur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Heracletus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Standard discretionary sanctions : Specifically I want an official warning from an administrator as this user is on a streak and is of the impression that any editor who expresses any viewpoint (including cautioning them) is not qualified to give the neutral/unbiased viewpoint.

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

4 May 2014 Explanation: Heracletus attempts to disqualify a DRN volunteer for making a suggestion on how to move forward that Heracletus does not like.
6 May 2014 Explanation: Heracletus takes an abusive and disruptive tone after being warned by myself that Assuming bad faith on others will not be tollerated at DRN.
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities Explanation: Heracletus violates WP:TPO (in addition to sailing past the WP:3RR hard line) in attemps to frame the referred conflict from DRN in a light favorable to them.
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities 2 Explanation: Heracletus attempts to wash their hands of the original complaint while at the same time importing the same personal conflict (and conduct) into the new MedCom request

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

No warnings have been issued, hence my asking for an Administrator to issue the warning as a warning by me will only serve to inflame the user even more and probably be met with "I never recieved a warning" denials

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Heracletus's actions are in bald violation of the principles of the case, at the intersection of unacceptable conduct and Serbia/Kosovo as described by the finding of fact for the case, and has been of concern previously.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning Heracletus

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Heracletus

Me and User:Qwerty786 have a content dispute over the articles of Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities and Community of Serbian municipalities, Kosovo on whether a new Community will continue the old one or not. We talked a lot about this issue, we presented our edits, tried to get input from Wikiprojects Serbia and Kosovo to no avail, and eventually ended up in DRN. Our entry there: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities was thought by User:Mark_Miller to be premature, because he hadn't noticed that extensive discussion had been made in the userpages of me and Qwerty786. In the mean time, Mark Miller also assigned us to User:Hasteur, after which point, User:Bejnar intervened raising different issues and taking up our case.

At some later point, however, I noticed that User:Bejnar had taken a clear position on the dispute in the talk page of the article, Talk:Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities#Recent_edits, in which he did not only make suggestions regarding our dispute (as a DRN volunteer), but also took a position on the dispute (of whether the one Community is a continuation of the other) presenting arguments. I therefore questioned his impartiality to act as a DRN volunteer in our case, as he had made those comments before taking up our case (while he thought the case would be dead, due to not enough prior discussion, as indicated by Mark Miller) and had not disclosed this when he took up our case, and then I countered his arguments on the content. In his suggestion, he does acknowledge himself that what he writes may not allow him to act as a DRN volunteer in our case. Anyway, he thought I object to him and withdrew from the case, while I also explained what I may object over.

Bejnar then notified Mark Miller that he's leaving the case and Mark Miller proceeded to state he does not have to do so and accuse me of wikilawyering Bejnar out of the case. I never explicitly asked Bejnar to leave the case, but since he had taken a position and argued on the content before taking up the case and he had never disclosed this, I think I had the right to clearly question his impartiality. Furthermore, he never countered my remarks and just withdrew and I faced no issues with him and didn't mean anything bad.

Then, Hasteur, who had created a section on our DRN case with the title "Reaper's process" when he intervened, went on to accuse me of assuming bad faith of Bejnar, because I questioned his impartiality, and threaten me with reporting me here. I, of course, confronted him over his ability to act impartially, due to his accusation and threats and he proceeded to close the dispute accusing me of assuming bad faith of him, too, and suggesting that I should be warned from some administrator over ArbCom Balkans' discretionary sanctions.

All this saga can be found here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities and here:Talk:Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities#Recent_edits. Obviously, questioning a DRN volunteer's impartiality because he took a position before taking up the case and did not disclose this, and then commenting that another volunteer who proceeds to accuse me of assuming bad faith and threaten me with irrelevant sanctions have NO connection to the content of the articles, to Balkans, to the reasons for which we had sought dispute resolution or the articles involved, or their content, or even our conduct regarding the content. I just questioned their impartiality over their actions as DRN volunteers and not over anything to do with the Balkans.

However, Hasteur proceeded to refer our dispute to a mediation process, Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities. In doing so however, he acknowledged he was not a party to the dispute and removed himself from the dispute, setting however the topic into the following:

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

How should the organization from 2008 be handled with the organization that is forming in the next few months?
How should the nationalistic and conduct issues regarding this organization be handled, especially with respect to WP:ARBMAC??

and including the following note:

"DRN Case manager's note: This is a referral from DRN for failure to come to a solution due to conduct based issues. Indications were made at DRN that one (or more) of the parties to the case would not respect the outcome unless it was in their favor (or enforced by an Admin). Hasteur (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)".

Obviously, in doing so, he only prejudiced the whole procedure, by a. claiming nationalism, whereas we were in the middle of a dispute resolution procedure (with Qwerty786 and not with Hasteur), b. claiming conduct issues, while we were in the middle of a dispute resolution procedure and even though it is clearly mentioned: "Formal mediation is only suitable for disputes over article content, so requests to mediate grievances with other editors will not be accepted." and c. indicating some party had mentioned that the result of DRN would not have been respected if it was not in their favour.

As User:Hasteur had clearly indicated he was not a participant and had erased his name, I of course, not only addressed the issue of a potential result of DRN not being respected with the following:

"No party ever indicated such a thing in DRN or anywhere else. To prove this, one can check Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities. Furthermore, the issues which caused User:Hasteur to choose to close the dispute resolution thread on DRN had nothing to do with the dispute, and all to do with what he/she perceived as bad faith against certain volunteers, including himself. By claiming that any party would not respect the outcome unless it was in their favour, User:Hasteur once again tries to be disruptive towards the mediation he/she himself/herself filled a request for. Heracletus (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)"

but also proceeded to change the topic into the one of our actual dispute with Qwerty786:

"1. What is the relation between the Community of Serbian municipalities in Kosovo formed in 2008, after elections organised by Serbia, with the Community of Serb-majority municipalities in Kosovo, which will be formed from the 2013 municipal elections organised by Kosovo authorities?
2. How should this relation be represented in the relevant articles?",

while also adding the following issue:

"The filling party, User:Hasteur, filled this request, trying to make it into a conduct review, and potentially cause sanctions by involving the Arbitration Committee, even though this had nothing to do with the reasons for which we had sought dispute resolution or the articles involved, or their content, or even our conduct in them. After filling this request, he/she tried to disengage himself/herself from this process, stating he/she is not involved in this, even though he filled this and tried to push it to be a mediation over his/her own grievances, contrary to what is stated here: "Formal mediation is only suitable for disputes over article content, so requests to mediate grievances with other editors will not be accepted." The relevant differences to prove this and related content are: [2], Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities, [3] and [4]. This kind of conduct is highly disruptive and forced me to reformulate this request. Heracletus (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

When Hasteur noticed that I removed the terms prejudicing our dispute with Qwerty786, he quickly changed them back to his, while continuing to act as a third uninvolved party, claiming that since I had crossed his comment of some party refusing to accept a potential result of DRN everything should be restored.

I then indicated that if he wants to set the topic and be the filing party, he has to indicate so and list his name as an involved editor, with an edit summary of reverting him: "If Hasteur wants to be the filling party, he/she should identify as such and as an involved party, before invoking the rules." And he just reverted me. However, in the mean time, Qwerty786 had indicated his participation in a mediation process with my version of the topic and thus Hasteur's changes - as he did not revert, but merely changed stuff - would make it seem as both me and Qwerty786 had agreed to his prejudice and suggestion that this was also a dispute over conduct.

Therefore, I reverted him again with an edit summary: "Stop being disruptive, you clearly mention you are not involved and you ever erased your name off here. You want to be a third party, be a third party." as he also kept acting as an unlisted third party. He reverted me again, for a third time, as he believed that I was just deleting his new comments, at which time, I reverted to the initial version, before anyone - including me - had commented and clearly indicating that he can restore his comments and I will create a new mediation request after adding my disagreement with his on his own request, as the topics he suggest are involving conduct, prejudice the conflict, state a false statement over acceptance of a potential result from DRN and all these, while he had removed or crossed his name from filing party or participant in the dispute. My edit summary was: "Restoring the original version, adding my own disagreement and will open a new request. Hasteur can restore his own, and only his own, comments, if he wishes."

Then, Hasteur proceeded to not only reinstate his or any comments, but to just revert for a fourth time in the previous version, where there were indications of agreement for a mediation process with his own topics. His edit summaries are after this, as follow: "Undid revision 607271493 by Heracletus (talk) No, you don't get to modify my text AT ALL! Such Incompetence leads me to think a Competence block needs to be implemented."
"→‎Decision of the Mediation Committee: TPO wins over everything"
"→‎Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities: Shut the dumb editor up and sieze the rights of the filing party" ---(a clear personal attack to me, which I would just let go) --- at this point he also reinstates himself as an involved party and as the filing party
"→‎Parties' agreement to mediation: Because Heracletus is more disruptive than MMA fans"
"→‎Decision of the Mediation Committee: Fix"

I of course subsequently edited his request to indicate I do not agree with it, as such: "I do not agree, due to User:Hasteur's disruptive editing (see the history of the page). User:Hasteur wants to act as a third party to this, while also setting the topic and making comments about it. He even kept resetting the topic, after the other involved user, User:Qwerty786 had agreed. Furthermore, he tries to make this into a conduct review, trying to push his own grievances on the issue. Heracletus (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

as he had reverted to me and Qwerty786 agreeing with his changed topics, and also pinged Qwerty786 over the changes made to indicate whether he still agrees to such a mediation process.

In the mean time, after his fourth revert, Hasteur indicated in his mediation request that he only listed himself as involved in this dispute for the following reasons:

"I agree only to stop Heracletus attempting to frame it as a "Everybody is on a vendetta against me" debate. Hasteur (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

" Since Heracletus is either incompentent and can't understand the rules of the road or is willfully trying to yank me in to this case by making it a conduct issue with me as well, I'll add myself to this case and come down on the prejudiced side of opposing anything Heracletus wants. Hasteur (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

Thereby, he clearly indicates he is a non-involved party who wants to set the topic into being a conduct dispute and who will get involved only in order to disrupt the mediation process against me. All these can be found in the history of his mediation request: [5].

As I had indicated in my last revert (3rd - but to the original clean request of his) I made my own mediation request explaining it, with Hasteur again trying to disrupt it or force me to accept his which is over conduct and prejudices the whole dispute by referring to nationalism and a denial to accept a potential result from DRN: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities_2

"User:Hasteur has filled a similar request, trying however to make it into a conduct review, and potentially cause sanctions by involving the Arbitration Committee, even though this had nothing to do with the reasons for which we had sought dispute resolution or the articles involved, or their content, or even our conduct in them. After filling this request, he/she tried to disengage himself/herself from this process, stating he/she is not involved in this, even though he filled this and tried to push it to be a mediation over his/her own grievances, contrary to what is stated here: "Formal mediation is only suitable for disputes over article content, so requests to mediate grievances with other editors will not be accepted." The relevant differences to prove this and related content are: [6], Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities, [7] and [8]. This kind of conduct is highly disruptive and forced me to enter a new request. He even then proceed to try and enforce his views, while either remaining a third party or claiming the filing party position only in order to disrupt the mediation process, as can be seen in the history of his request. Heracletus (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an involved party I ask that the committee close this request and force Heracletus to face the original MedCom request as is is only an attempt by Heracletus to frame the debate the way they want it. Hasteur (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have clearly indicated here that you are not an involved party, and here that you only want to get involved in order to disrupt the mediation process against me. And, you have even made the following edit summary while reverting me: "Shut the dumb editor up and sieze the rights of the filing party". Heracletus (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you do admit that you are deliberately trying to frame the debate under terms that are favorable to you. Since you kept moaning and complaining over the fact that I was not a party to the dispute and trying to remove my text, I thought it only fitting that I become a party to the dispute and take the rights granted by MedCom to prevent you from whitewashing the debate. Hasteur (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot set the topic for a mediation process for which you are not a participant and then just walk away. You wrote here: "Since Heracletus is either incompentent and can't understand the rules of the road or is willfully trying to yank me in to this case by making it a conduct issue with me as well, I'll add myself to this case and come down on the prejudiced side of opposing anything Heracletus wants.", so it is clear that you only want to disrupt the mediation process against me, otherwise you believe you are not a participant to the content dispute. Furthermore, you try to make this into a conduct review to settle your grievances. I will just ignore you here from now on. Heracletus (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

At this point that Hasteur saw that I will just try to settle my dispute with Qwerty786 and not fall for his disruptions, he filed a claim to have me warned here. Obviously this has nothing to do with the Balkans, or the articles, or their contents, and has everything to do with Hasteur trying to mediate his grievances with me in an inappropriate way.

I am not sure if I should ask for a WP:Boomerang, but he has clearly tried to disrupt our mediation process with Qwerty786. The dispute did not involve him, much like my objections on whether Bejnar could be impartial or not did not involve him. He proceeded to close our DRN entry and then wanted to set the topic on conduct disputes, while also falsely indicating we would not accept a DRN result, and all these while he indicated he was not involved in the dispute and even crossed his name out. And, then, when he was forced to get involved to be able to control the topic as the filing party, he went on to say that he's only getting involved to "come down on the prejudiced side of opposing anything Heracletus wants", after even having called me dumb and so.

And, instead of me reporting him, he is the one who reports me here, merely because my content dispute with another editor touches articles about the Balkans. His motives clearly have nothing to do with the Balkans and he indicates that with the examples of "violations" he refers to. He even reverted the content of his request more times than I did, 4 vs. 3 (with my last one being to the pre-disputed "clean" version), and he mentions this as an example...

Since he is an uninvolved volunteer/user/editor, he should let me and Qwerty786 set our own topic of content dispute and try to settle it, instead of just trying to make it into a conduct dispute. Heracletus (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will also ping here the other editors, in case they may want to comment: Bejnar, Qwerty786, Mark_Miller. Heracletus (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Heracletus

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

Per the new WP:AC/DS procedures, there are no more warnings, only alerts, which any editor can issue to any other. Please follow the instructions at WP:AC#DS/Awareness and alerts to do so. In the absence of any condition described there being met, there is nothing that admins can do here. Sandstein 05:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mallexikon

The request cannot be processed because Mallexikon has not yet been made aware of discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 07:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Mallexikon

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: 76.107.171.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mallexikon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

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

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

29 April 2014 Mallexikon engages in race baiting; “white male tech/science-friendly geeks”
29 April 2014 Mallexikon taunts Dominus Vobisdu when Dominus Vobisdu responds negatively to Mallexikon’s comments about race.
27 April 2014 Attempts to call Traditional Chinese medicine a “protoscience”.
27 April 2014 Edit wars to call Traditional Chinese medicine a “protoscience”.
27 April 2014 Edit wars to call Traditional Chinese medicine a “protoscience”.
28 April 2014 Removes “pseudoscience” from Traditional Chinese medicine.
28 April 2014 Edit wars to call Traditional Chinese medicine a “protoscience”.
28 April 2014 Edit wars to call Traditional Chinese medicine a “protoscience”.
28 April 2014 Edit wars to call Traditional Chinese medicine a “protoscience”.
29 April 2014 Removes “pseudoscience” from Traditional Chinese medicine.
4 May 2014 Returning from his block, Mallexikon once again calls Traditional Chinese medicine a “protoscience”.
6 May 2014 Edit wars to call Traditional Chinese medicine a “protoscience”.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

29 April 2014 Blocked for edit warring on Traditional Chinese medicine

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Previously sanctioned for conduct in the area of conflict on 29 April 2014 by Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After having been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on Traditional Chinese medicine, Mallexikon has resumed his efforts to call Traditional Chinese medicine a “protoscience”. His earlier efforts involved calling Traditional Chinese medicine a protoscience directly, while his newer efforts use a new source to attempt to call Traditional Chinese medicine a “pre-science” while piping to protoscience. Mallexikon has been informed that his new source does not use the expression “pre-scicence” to refer to protoscience (a through reading of his source makes this quite clear), yet he reinserted the contentious text anyway.

Mallexikon’s comments about race on Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine reveal a racially motivated agenda. He seems to be of the opinion that “white males” or those he suspects of being white males are not allowed to call Traditional Chinese medicine a pseudoscience. This, combined with his refusal to stop reinserting his preferred text without achieving consensus, makes him unable to edit constructively in the area of Traditional Chinese medicine.

@Sandstein, Okay, I’ve taken the issue to WP:ANI, so this thread can be closed. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

6 May 2014

Discussion concerning Mallexikon

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Mallexikon

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mallexikon

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

We can't act here because the previous block was not a discretionary sanctions block. There is therefore no evidence that Mallexikon was aware of discretionary sanctions, and so we can't apply any. However, any editor can issue an alert to Mallexikon, with {{Ds/alert}}. Sandstein 15:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

76.107.171.90 and Barney the barney barney

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning 76.107.171.90 and Barney the barney barney

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Askahrc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

76.107.171.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
Barney the barney barney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

(Please forgive the slightly unusual format; these two editors both have a history of the same style of NPA toward me, often support one another, have been warned in the same AE previously and recently began attacking me at the same time, so it made sense to include them both)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: 76.107.171.90

May 5, 2014 76.107.171.90 posted “Cap’n McDouche” on Guy's Talk page, containing the vulgarity in the title, an attempt to insult me with a homophobic profanity and many aspersions against myself and other editors (Littleolive oil & Liz), all while suggesting to other editors plans to get me blocked. He also suggests accusing me of violating a community block that does not exist, a tactic which has wasted the time of admins in the past (see further comments). WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS.

Barney the barney barney

May 4, 2014 Barney states that I am incompetent, likely due to a severe mental impairment that he links to.
May 4, 2014 Barney clarifies his remarks to state that regardless of what illness I do/don't possess, I am too grossly incompetent in every way to be aware of my own ignorance.
May 4, 2014 When Littleolive oil informed Barney that it was unacceptable to imply other editors have mental illnesses, Barney called her ignorant.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

April 3, 2014 AE Results discussion in which both Barney and 76 are judged to be violating NPA. The admin wished to block Barney completely, but settled for another warning.
April 3, 2014 76's 2 day blocking for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA while proclaiming that I was involved in a conspiracy to damage WP.
February 23, 2014 I noticed that an archived ANI had been tampered with by Barney, so I reverted the edit and reminded Barney that editing ANI Archives was frowned upon. Barney then told me that I was too incompetent to understand WP and insisted on reediting the archive. He was then sanctioned for edit-warring the archive.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked. (76, Barney)
Barney placed on Pseudoscience Sanction Log for incivility and aspersion. (Barney, Barney)
Both Barney and 76 participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on April 3, 2014.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

76.107.171.90 (talk) and Barney the barney barney have been sanctioned and repeatedly warned respectively for violating WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA toward me in the past. I have not pursued any interaction with either of them since then, but recently they have both begun making personal attacks and casting aspersions about my integrity, sexuality and mental health.

76.107.171.90 posted “Cap’n McDouche” on Guy's Talk page, accusing me of writing on an off-wiki page (the content was lifted from months-old postings on my Talk page and I had no involvement or input in their posting on the website, which the website openly states). 76 then attempted to insult me with unacceptably homophobic profanity:

"He has now posted another polemic on Tumbleman’s website in which he indicates that he is “investigating dicks” on Wikipedia. And while I have no doubt that Askahrc has an extreme interest in dicks, I think it’s high time that this situation be rectified."

This reflects the vulgarity 76 used with me previously and when he called someone a "diehard retard." 76 then bragged they've intentionally been trying to provoke me

"When I first goaded Askahrc into providing evidence against himself at his own sock puppet investigation more than two months ago I figured that Askahrc would be a self-rectifying problem once I got the ball rolling.")

and refers to me as a "hardcore bully" (I've never interacted with 76 except to get him to stop harassing me). 76 denounces Littleolive oil as "harassing" and Liz as "the consort of every major fringe pusher".

Finally, 76 proposes various ideas on how to get me blocked,

"I can think of several strategies, but I think the most obvious is to get him for being a meat puppet. Alternately, I could dust off the old community block (it’s still “on the books”)."

I presume the block's status is in quotes because both Barney and 76 have been falsely stating I have a community block even after admins have told them that I have none. This continuing falsehood has led to wasted time on an AN by an admin fooled into thinking there was an actual block on me.

Barney posted on an AN board that I was too incompetent to contribute to sourcing a page, explaining that

"This may be due to the Dunning–Kruger effect."

The Dunning-Kruger effect states that grossly incompetent people are too ignorant to recognize their own mental disability, and compares its effect to severe brain injury. Barney further explains

"I do not really care what illnesses askahrc (talk · contribs) has. What I do accuse askahrc (talk · contribs) of is rank incompetence, contrary to WP:COMPETENCE, and lacking even the basic competence to understand that he's not competent." 1

then insists he has proof of my ignorance & incompetence without sharing it.

After referring to Dunning-Kruger as an illness himself, Barney then calls Littleolive oil ignorant for decrying his calling another editor mentally ill. This violates WP:CIVIL (and logic...).

76 and Barney each have a history of personal attacks, vulgarity and casting aspersions. They've been directly warned/sanctioned about this numerous times and yet continue to attack myself and others. The Cap'n (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I acknowledge Sandstein's request that any future AE's (let's hope not) be divided into separate filings for each involved editor for convenience. The Cap'n (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@76, this falls under ARBPSEUDO discretionary sanctions because A) Every single person you reference in your rant has been connected to WP:ARBPSEUDO in one way or another B) it's where you were warned to avoid this exact behavior (ie. accusing me of conspiring with someone associated with Pseudoscience), C) you specifically refer to wanting to stop "fringe pushers" in your rant.

Also, please note (as I mentioned on Guy's Talk and again here) that I did not write anything on that website. I only wrote what was on my talk page, which was entitled "Case Files," included no profanity, personal attacks or even the names of people I supposedly disagree with. The owner of the website edited and renamed it himself without my input. Please stop asserting that I added that material to the website or named it. The Cap'n (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning 76.107.171.90

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by 76.107.171.90

This isn’t covered under pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. The incident in question took place on Guy’s talk page and focuses on Askahrc’s recent claim that he is “investigating dicks” on Wikipedia. Pseudoscience was not discussed and the conversation focused on Askahrc’s ongoing behavioral issues and the mounting evidence that he is the meat puppet of an indefinitely blocked user. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 76.107.171.90

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

The complaint is justified on the merits. The edit at issue by 76.107.171.90 is an unacceptable personal attack (WP:NPA), especially insofar as it contains a sexual slur ("I have no doubt that Askahrc has an extreme interest in dicks"). I have previously blocked 76.107.171.90 for personal attacks in April for 48 hours. Clearly this was insufficiently preventative. A longer block is necessary to deter future misconduct of this sort, particularly because the statement by 76.107.171.90 does not address their misconduct, but instead makes unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct against the complainant, in violation of the principle described in WP:ASPERSIONS. For these reasons, I am blocking 76.107.171.90 for two weeks.

I am doing so under normal administrator authority, because it appears to me that the edit at issue is not within the scope of discretionary sanctions. The "Pseudoscience" decision authorizes these for "all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science", which excludes talk pages. But the newer WP:AC/DS procedure authorizes sanctions "for the following topic areas" including "Pages relating to Pseudoscience and Fringe science", and says: "When considering whether edits fall within the scope of discretionary sanctions, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy", which, at WP:TBAN, is scoped broadly enough to include talk page discussions. Therefore, in my view, sanctions are in principle authorized for talk page discussions related to pseudoscience or fringe science. But the edit at issue does not mention or touch upon such matters, but is framed only as a series of personal attacks with no apparent relation to the underlying topic area or content disputes, if any. Therefore, in this respect, I am of the view that this is not actionable as an AE request. Sandstein 09:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Barney the barney barney

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Barney the barney barney

This is entirely frivolous complaint by Askahrc (talk · contribs) who has a history of filing such frivolous cases to the authorities.

I stand by every comment I have made about Askahrc (talk · contribs) - but not those he has now repeatedly lied about, even after being corrected.

To clarify for a second time: I do not believe that Askahrc (talk · contribs) is basically WP:COMPETENT to edit articles related to WP:FRINGE material, and in this assessment most users probably agree with me. Askahrc apparently believes he is competent. I suggest that this self-assessment is due to the Dunning–Kruger effect. This is not a mental illness. What is says is that those who are not competent to do something also tend to overestimate their competence to do that thing.

In my opinion, Askahrc (talk · contribs) is basically a troll, who like others is anti-WP:FRINGE and anti-Wikipedia. WP:NOTHERE is appropriate. Vzaak (talk · contribs) has shown his attempts to use sockpuppets to troll.

I suggest that no clearer case of WP:BOOMERANG exists. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Barney the barney barney

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

[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 303: / Line 303: @@
 <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
 ====Statement by Barney the barney barney====
+This is entirely frivolous complaint by {{user|Askahrc}} who has a history of filing such frivolous cases to the authorities.
+I stand by every comment I have made about {{user|Askahrc}} - but not those he has now repeatedly lied about, even after being corrected.
+To clarify for a second time: I do not believe that {{user|Askahrc}} is basically [[WP:COMPETENT]] to edit articles related to [[WP:FRINGE]] material, and in this assessment most users probably agree with me.  Askahrc apparently believes he is competent.  I suggest that this self-assessment is due to the [[Dunning–Kruger effect]].  '''This is not a mental illness'''.  What is says is that those who are not competent to do something also tend to overestimate their competence to do that thing.
+In my opinion, {{user|Askahrc}} is basically a troll, who like others is anti-[[WP:FRINGE]] and anti-Wikipedia.  [[WP:NOTHERE]] is appropriate.  {{user|Vzaak}} has shown his attempts to use sockpuppets to troll.
+I suggest that no clearer case of [[WP:BOOMERANG]] exists. [[User:Barney the barney barney|Barney the barney barney]] ([[User talk:Barney the barney barney|talk]]) 11:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 ====Statement by (username)====

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