Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Shortcuts

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

Igny

Igny and UUNC are topic banned indefinitely from the topic of Eastern Europe, broadly construed. Sander Säde is topic banned from the topic of Eastern Europe, broadly construed, until 00:00 GMT on 24 September 2012. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Igny

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nug (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe

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

Igny has resumed his old disruptive behaviour on his first day back, 11 June 2012, from a six month topic ban:

gratuitous battleground attacks[1] accusing others of WP:EEML teaming [2] and being SPA and SOCKS[3], warned by others to tone down his attacks [4], but continues regardless [5]

creating a battleground by submitting vexatious reports against his perceived foes[6] while canvassing possible action from perceived friendly editors[7]

Tag-warring at Occupation of the Baltic states

01:23, 17 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 497948928 by Collect (talk)")
12:53, 17 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 497981958 by Nug (talk)")
13:31, 17 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 498019978 by Collect (talk)")
00:01, 19 June 2012 (edit summary: "undo Miacek's edit in part due to lack of participation in the discussion. His edit was violating WP:3RR and WP:TEAM. Miacek had ample opportunity to self-revert after a warning")
00:42, 19 June 2012 (edit summary: "Not only there is a WP:TEAM, you have been warned about the team's edit warring, and your participation in edit war without discussion is just that - an edit war without discussion - so hence my revert.")

despite being repeatedly warned to stop [8],[9],[10] and even after being reported to 3RN[11], reverts again:

09:07, 19 June 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 498294355 by Toddy1 (talk)")

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

Igny was topic banned for 6 months[12] for similar behaviour as stated by the enforcement admin:

gratuitous battleground attacks at AE accusing others of WP:EEML teaming
attempting to solicit participation in that AE from perceived friendly editors
Tag-warring at Occupation of the Baltic states

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Igny seems to have some kind of obsession with this article, having previously been blocked for 72 hours for tag-warring this same article [13] and earlier engaged in page move warring:

13:51, 27 March 2011 Igny (talk | contribs) moved page Occupation of the Baltic states to Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states over redirect (move per talk)
19:47, 19 March 2010 Igny (talk | contribs) moved page Occupation of the Baltic states to Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states over redirect (undo vandalism)
17:11, 19 March 2010 Igny (talk | contribs) moved page Occupation of the Baltic states to Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states over redirect (move to a more adequate npov title per "no fresh arguments from Sander on talk page" argument, see talk)
15:23, 17 March 2010 Igny (talk | contribs) moved page Occupation of the Baltic states to Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states (move to more adequate title, see talk) (revert)

Evidently topic bans do not work, as Igny states "I do not care less about my topic ban"[14]

Note that UUNC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new user who admits to being canvassed off-wiki specifically to comment on this article[15]

Paul Siebert's un-evidenced claims of "co-ordination" and insinuations of unethical name changes (I changed my name due to off-wiki harassment), apart from being untrue, are not relevant to this report. He is free to lodge his own report here or with the Arbitration Committee if he so desires.

Reply to admins about Sander Säde

Sander apologised for his remarks here at AE[16] and at Paul Siebert's talk page[17], which Paul accepted[18], before any admin arrived here to comment. In the past when I was attacked as a "right wing extremist" espousing ethnic nationalist POV and that person refused to apologise, I brought that person to this page[19] and after a long discussion he finally apologised to me after the admins here threatened to sanction him, then the matter was closed without action. Therefore for the sake of consistency the Sander Säde matter should be closed without any action other than to encourage him to remain civil in the future.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified [20]. --Nug (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Igny

Statement by Igny

Comments by others about the request concerning Igny

Comment by Collect

Igny's single-minded perseverence about labeling an article title as being POV includes:

[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] (last 3 within 14 hours on 17 June 2012)
[57] 19 June with summary Not only there is a WP:TEAM, you have been warned about the team's edit warring, and your participation in edit war without discussion is just that - an edit war without discussion - so hence my revert
[58] 19 June with summary of Undid revision 498294355 by Toddy1

Igny was warned by me at [59] quite politely.

Paul Siebert informed him at [60] not to revert. He also posted at [61] that In my opinion, jumping into this swamp right after the end of your topic ban was a mistake. Then [62] Do not try to restore a POV tag, please. Let's wait (Paul notified at [63])

[64] shows the notice of the topic ban per Arbitration Requests/Enforcement on October 7, 2011.

It is reasonably clear to the most casual observer that Igny did not learn anything from the six month ban.

He also single-mindedly kept asserting the the "occupation" was a "liberation" in the past. In October he was banned for six months on this same issue about Easter Europe. I would note he has repeatedly inferred that I am part of a "mailing list" or the like, which I found quite unprepossessing on his part. [65], [66], [67], [68], and especially [69] show a blatant ongoing BATTLEGROUND issue here on his part. At the last he specifically states:

. I accused you of violating [[[WP:TEAM]] and abuse of WP:CONSENSUS and since you admitted that you did not forget WP:EEML, and since you have been involved in numerous cases involving the WP:EEML members, you violated these rules knowingly so, that is on purpose and not by a mistake.

Which I submit indicates clearly that Igny should not be within a mile of Eastern Europe articles or discussions of any sort. Collect (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@UUNC - I an not "Latvian" so why make that sort of claim when the reverts over time have been made by about a dozen editors -- all of the pov tag insertion by a single editor who has already had a topic ban? Did you read the prior discussion at AE? Also note you now are up to a total of 22 edits, potentially raising questions to some. Collect (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WQA#User:Sander_S.C3.A4de.27s_gross_incivility is even more evidence here to confirm the original October 2011 findings at [70] and Igny's userspace page at [71]. Cheers all. Collect (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note again that UUNC is a remarkable new user who states [72] explicitly that he was CANVASSed off-wiki, and suggest that any topic ban imposed on Igny also be imposed on this "new editor" who is following in Igny's footsteps. Collect (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@PS - you assert that I used the word "warned" wrt your multiple posts to Igny - I do not find that word used by me here with regard to your clear salient posts, which anyone clearly may read. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment from UUNC

Does not the POV tag say that it should not be removed?--UUNC (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment

The Wikipedia's policy WP:NPOV linked from the tag says:

That an article is in an "NPOV dispute" does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is. To indicate that the neutrality of an article is disputed, insert "disputed" at the top of the article to display:

The tag says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved"

User Igny made his edits in full compliance with Wikipedia's rules as there are currently three users who dispute the article's neutrality. Conversely, removal of the tag by the opposing team is a breach of the rule. And following from what is cited above, any user has right to insert this tag once he/she disagrees with the content. There is no need for consensus for this tag because it is designed specifically to indicate that there is no consensus.

The Latvian editors attempt to use their greater numbers to secure their own version of the article and to hide the ongoing dispute by removing the legitimately placed disputed tag. They accuse other editors in racism [73] "racist trolls", Baltophoby [74] and Stalinism [75].

There is obvious coordination between the Latvian editors and abuse of the arbitration enforcement.

I think such malintended reporting should backfire at those who makes the report.

--UUNC (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re @My very best wishes. The insertion of the "disputed" tag does not require consensus. It is specifically designed for the cases where there is no consensus as follows from its description.

--UUNC (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ T. Canens

You accuse me in being a meatpuppet and prpose indef ban. In that case why the EEML people were ot indef banned if there were multiple documented instances of meatpuppetry? They all should be banned long ago.

@ DQ

Does not WP:Ninja which Paul linked say that blocking somebody reverting such ninja team for 3RR is misuse and misinterpretation of WP:3RR?

Comment by involved Paul Siebert

I was notified about this case by Collect. Since my name has been mentioned here, I believe I have a right to comment. In the second part of my post, I would like to point arbitrator's attention at the subject that has a direct relation to some participants of this dispute. Let me start with the explanations first.

First of all, let me explain the essence of the dispute. One part of users (Igny and I are the most active representatives of this party) maintain that the word "Annexation" (along the word "occupation") should be present is the title of the article about the history of the Baltic states during 1940-91. Another party insists that the word "occupation" solely reflects the state of things quite adequately. (I do not go into the further details here, because AE page it is not for content disputes.)

The sequence of the events, as I see it was as follows.

On 7 October 2011 Igny was topic-banned for six months from EE related articles [76]
On 7 March 2012 the topic ban period had ended. Igny took no actions regarding the "Occupation of the Baltic states" article, although the neutrality dispute over the article's title remained unresolved.
On 6 June 2012, Nug changed the title of "Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states sidebar" to "Occupation of the Baltic states sidebar" [77], thereby further shifting the balance in favour of the POV shared by the second party of the editors.
This step prompted Igny to return to this issue, and to renew the discussion over the article's title. Taking into account that the dispute has long history, and that the old arguments remained essencially non-addressed, it was reasonable to add a POV tag to the article, which Igny has done.

The rest of story has been described in the Nug's post. To that I would like to add the following:

Nug forgot to mention that Igny's return to this issue has been caused by Nug's own attempt to rename a sidebar, a step that has shifted a shaky equilibrium.
Of course, no edit war over the tag would occur in that situation if all party spent their time to resolve the neutrality dispute. However, they, for some unclear reason, concluded that removal of the tag would be tantamount to a resolution of the POV issue. Thus, user Collect removes the tag with a totally misleading edit summary [78] ("clear consensus on the article talk page"), and did that again [79] citing WP:CONSENSUS, despite the fact that the discussion on the talk page demonstrated the opposite. It worth noting that Collect brought virtually no new arguments except his totally unsubstantiated statement that we achieved some "consensus". In a situation when at least two users express their legitimate concern to remove the tag was incorrect.
Collect claimed that I "warned" Igny. That is a misinterpretation of my words. I didn't warn him, I just advised him not to re-add a tag immediately after it has been removed, anticipating the AE request, which, as I correctly predicted, may follow. That doesn't mean I believed the tag was not warranted, or that Igny did something wrong.
Finally, let me elaborate on tag teaming. During this edit war, some new user (Estlandia) has come from nowhere, removed the tag (twice)[80], [81] and disappeared. My requests to explain his position or to self-revert [82], [83] have been ignored. Igny explained to me that in actuality "Estlandia" is a new name of the ex-EEML member user:Miacek. Therefore, I can conclude this user cannot be considered as uninvolved, and the removal of the tag can hardly be considered as non-coordinated.
Based on that I conclude that Igny became a victim of tag teaming, and I am partially responsible for that: would I join this edit war, the anti-Igny team had never get a formal pretext for reporting him. Frankly speaking, I thought they were smarter, and they would abstain from AE, but, regrettably, I appeared to be wrong.

Going back to Miacek/Estlandia, I would like to discuss him and Nug, and the problem with new names of the ex-EEML members in general. I noticed that some ex-EEML members changed their names, and some of them did that twice. I fully understand their quite legitimate desire to disassociate themselves from the regrettable incident with EEML, moreover, I interpret that step as a sign of their genuine desire to drop their previous disruptive behaviour, and I never mention EEML in discussions with those EEML members who learned due lessons from that story. However, I see some problems with the name change. Although the name change is not a clean start, and the user acting under a new name does not need to abandon the previous areas of interest, disassociation of one's name from the EEML story is possible only if one's editorial behaviour has been really improved, and the battleground behaviour has been really abandoned. However, how can we interpret, for example, this [84] statement? Nug remind others that TFD was warned per WP:DIGWUREN. That is correct, however, this post creates a misleading impression that its author is a user whose hands are clean. Indeed, one cannot find Nug's name among the editors who has been warned ber WP:DIGWUREN, however, a user:Martintg was placed under formal notice on 22 June 2009. Interestingly, whereas it is technically possible to trace the connection from Nug to ex-EEML member Martintg, a user who does not know that in advance is virtually unable to do that. A similar mistake I myself made regarding Estlandia: I genuinely believed I am dealing with a new user who came with fresh viewpoint and who is not burdened with old relations with the members of the dispute, however, as we can see I was wrong.
I addressed to Nug and explained that, as soon as he is editing in the area of his old interests, which is highly controversial, he should either abandon his battleground behaviour, or make a connection between his new and old names more clear, however, my request was ignored. In connection to that, and taking into account that some (few) ex-EEML members show a tendency to return to the battleground behaviour, I request that, independently on the result concerning Igny, the issue with new names of the ex-EEML members, Nug and Estlandia should be resolved. I expect that they should chose between two options (i) to abandon battleground behaviour in the EE related areas, and never act in concert, as if they were independent participants, or (ii) to add a clear and unequivocal explanation on their user pages that would allow any new good faith user to easily trace a connection back to their old user names.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

on "attempting to solicit participation on notice boards from perceived friendly editors[85]"

Although it was not my initial intention, as soon as Martin decided to discuss the diff he has taken from my talk page, let me tell few words about this story. It was an incident over collaboration of the Latvians with Nazi Germany during the Holocaust. A user Vecrumba misinterpreted my words thereby presenting me as a supporter of weird Nazi racial theory. I requested him to stop and apologize (he stopped, but didn't apologize; since I have no plans to report Vecrumba, I beg you to forgive me for not providing the diffs). Vecrumba was very emotional during this dispute, and, I believe, Igny correctly concluded that it was that dispute which was a subject of the discussion on the Vecrumba's talk page, where Sander Sade mentioned some "racist troll" (obviously, my humble person). Igny correctly assumed that it is not in my habits to read Vecrumba's talk page, and, as soon as my humble person is being discussed there I should know about that. I see no canvassing in that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A response to My Very Best Wishes

You have probably noticed that I came here only because I was notified about this case, and because my humble person, as well as the posts from my talk page, are being discussed here. What is not clear for me is your allegations about my tendency to bring the EEML case argument "in every dispute" (your wording). I am especially surprised to read that because I wrote nothing about the user:Biophys, whose account was deleted, and the user page user:Hodja Nasreddin has been created instead of that. The Hodja Nasreddin's page now is a redirect to user:My very best wishes. BTW, when the user My very best wishes firstly joined the EE related discussion I genuinely believed that some new unbiased editor came, who is not burdened with old sympathies and antipathies, and whose fresh opinion should be listened. I realised that apparently I am dealing with old Biophys just by accident, and I am pretty sure some other users have been mislead too. However, I was not intended to talk about your name change, because I believed that you, as well as other EEML members whom I respect abandoned your old battleground and partisan behaviour. Regrettably, I was not right. He who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones. I respectfully request you (i) to explain the details of your previous involvement, and, if you want to continue in the same vein, (ii) to add an explanation on your userpage about your connection with the user Biophys.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re "If anything, Igny simply fought against WP:Consensus of four editors", sorry, Biophys, but that is not true. At least one editor fully supported Igny, and, taking into account that Estlandia didn't bother to present even a single non-trivial argument (and only in his second edit summary), Collect's posts contained almost no concrete arguments either, the only two users whose arguments did deserve serious attention were Nug and Vecrumba. In other words, it was essentially a dispute between me and Igny, and Nug and Vecrumba. Other users participated just sporadically. In addition, don't forget about UUNC whose views are much more radical then Igny's and mine views. In summary, you either are not aware of details or you deliberately misinterpret the facts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that Biophys/Nodja Nasreddin/My Very Best Wishes should either present concrete examples that supports his statement ("the desire of Paul to bring the "EEML" argument in every dispute"), or to apologise. I admit that the word "every" was a hyperbola, so I request Biophys just to prove that I use references to EEML frequently. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I requested MVBW to apologise on 19th of June 2012. He replied to Malik78 on 20st of June 2012, which mean he is active, and, most probably, has read and understood my request. However, I still see no apologies. I can wait two more days. If no evidences will be presented that I have a habit to refer to the EEML incident frequently, or no apologies will be brought (and the statement "What bothers me is the desire of Paul to bring the "EEML" argument in every dispute" retracted), I'll request for sanctions against MVWB.

My second comment is about VM's proposal "to go back to the case pages and update the old usernames to new usernames so they'd align". Frankly speaking, I saw no need in that until the very recent incidents, because I saw no problems with VM, MVBW (and I even didn't know anything about Estlandia). With regard to the latter, let me point out that Igny was very surprised by his last two reverts, because Miacek was known for his integrity in many WP aspects. In connection to that, I would propose those users to decide by themselves: either they want the EEML/DIGWUREN cases to be updated as VM suggested, or they take a voluntary obligation do not interfere into the disputes where other ex-EEML members have already been involved and to act as a allegedly independent party. I will be equally satisfied with both outcomes.

Re UUCN

This new user has been declared to be a meatpuppet for several times, but this allegation was based solely on his own declaration ("I was invited to comment"). Per our policy, the term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care. If UUCN is a meatpuppet (btw, whose meatpuppet he is? there are no meatpuppets without "meatmasters") those who throw such accusations should provide some evidences. The fact that UUCN openly declared that he was invited does not mean he was invited by some of the participants of the dispute. However, as far as I understand, UUCN expresses the opinion that does not coincide with opinion of other participants, so it is highly unlikely that he was invited by any of the current participants of the dispute. I definitely didn't invite him, and, as far as I understand, Igny also didn't do that. I found no explanation in the policy about the proper way to deal with a person who was invited by a third party. If policy says anything concrete about that, please, let me know. However, if policy says nothing about that, I expect everyone to stop label UUCN as a meatpuppet, and remove those statements from this thread.

@Sander Sade

Thanks. Forget about that. This incident doesn't deserve mention. I myself mentioned it only because I had to provide some explanations regarding the Nug's post. Without Nug, I would allow it to sink into oblivion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ DQ(ʞlɐʇ)

Upon reading the DQ(ʞlɐʇ) 's post I found his analysis of the situation superficial and totally unsatisfactory. Firstly, taking into account that the Occupation of the Baltic states has been fully protected for one month, the purpose of one week long Igny's block is totally obscure to me: even if we assume that Igny has been engaged in disruptive activity, article's protection made it physically impossible, so the block is fully punitive.
Secondly, as I already explained, two Estlandia's/Miacek's reverts were a typical example of tag teaming, so I doubt Igny exceeded 3RR limit.
Thirdly, the DQ(ʞlɐʇ) 's statement: " not willing to engage properly in the Dispute resolution process" is false. Igny explained his position on the talk page for several times, his position was supported by at least one user (myself), and responsibility for the escalation of the conflict is on those who removed the POV tag under a laughable pretext that some consensus has been achieved.
Fourthly, Sander Sade's post was not harmful but useful, because it allowed Vecrumba to tone down his posts, thereby preventing escalation of the conflict. In addition, Sander Sade already apologised for that, and I see absolutely no need in any actions against him. This issue has been totally resolved, and any action against Sander Sade would be punitive, not preventive. Taking into account that it was me who was an object of Sander Sade's "personal attack", my opinion on that account has greater weight than DQ(ʞlɐʇ) 's opinion. I strongly object against Sander Sade's block, and in the case if he will be blocked I will appeal that immediately.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Collect

I concede I am not native English speaker, so I am not an expert here, but it that context "inform not to revert" is closer to "warn". In actuality, I advised Igny not to demonstrate the same battleground behaviour as his opponents did. This was a friendly advice, and by quoting me you implicitly misinterpreted my intentions. BTW, I didn't "warn" you because I know that is senseless.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update

User Igny has been recently blocked by an administrator for a week. This was possibly achieved by off-wiki contacting an administrator because their previous attempt to report Igny resulted in that the page was protected and no action was taken against Igny [86]. This is obviously one-sided decision because the other party also participated in edit-war and given their off-line coordination they should be fairly counted as one user for purposes of 3RR.

It would be possibly fair to treat this group as one editor in the future to prevent further crowd edit-warring.--UUNC (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- @UUNC. You said you "were invited" [87]. Who and how invited you? My very best wishes (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the blocking admin to undo his block[88] so that Igny can participate here. --Nug (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was a correct step, Nug.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by previously involved My very best wishes

Illegal coordination

In the last round of edit war [89] Igny reverted edits by four participants: Toddy1, Estlandia, Collect and Nug. All of them are experienced editors and active in this subject area for a long time. They know how to watch pages; there is nothing else behind it. Let's not bring the "EEML" argument in every dispute because this mailing list does not exist for more than two years, to my knowledge. Bringing back old grudges for years is disruptive. Let's drop the stick (just as I said before to Paul [90]). Let's WP:FORGIVE.

The only example of probable illegal coordination was UUNC (talk · contribs) who came by request to contribute to a single highly controversial dispute. According to the policy, "recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited", but that is exactly what had happened, according to his own first statement and editing pattern. While looking at his first statement, one should also look at the nature of the dispute (the previous comment that appears in the same diff) and at the statement itself. This is a typical WP:SOAP statement unsupported by any refs. It compares the treatment of Russians by Balts with treatment of Jews by Nazi. One should also look at further actions by UUNC [91]. He immediately goes to three administrative noticeboards: 3RR, ANI and AE, specifically to "influence decisions on Wikipedia" by supporting Igny. He even tells that he is a more experienced wikifighter than Igny [92]. I do not think we need another experienced wikifighter in this subject area.

He most probably came from Russian wikipedia. Who exactly recruited him is not really important. Usually this is someone who edits the same page, has the same POV, and was engaged in discussion at the moment of recruitment (per WP:DUCK), but who knows?

Igny

If anything, Igny simply fought against WP:Consensus of four editors, and he was correctly blocked on 3RR. According to the policy, the consensus is established by the entire process of editing, not only on the article talk page. And there is no doubts that behavior by Igny qualifies as WP:DE (see diffs by Collect).

@UUNC. No, template "NPOV" in not designed to fight against CONSENSUS. WP:Consensus is our central policy that must always be respected. Nether it is designed as "a badge of shame" (see here), but it was used exactly as the "badge of shame" by Igny and some others over a long period of time. My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC) As about this your question, one of them was indeed indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just was going to leave [93], but saw this AE discussion and decided to help since I know all involved contributors, even though I did not interact with them for the last few months (except Malik78 who I did not expect to appear). I would like to apologize if any of my comments above can be viewed as unfair or unhelpful. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Names of users

New names of participants should be recorded, unless they are already recorded in specific cases where these users have been sanctioned - please check. My very best wishes (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malick78

====Paul==== What bothers me is the desire of Paul to bring the "EEML" argument in every dispute, even though a half of editors on the "majority side" in this case never even were EEML members. I tried to convince Paul [94] that it belongs to drop the stick, but he still did not get it, even after several years since the EEML case. Whether this represent an assumption of bad faith and battleground behavior on his part (which might require warning or sanctions) should be decided by uninvolved administrators. My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC) I decided to remove the comment simply because this AE request was about Igny, rather than about Paul or anyone else. My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree with Paul Siebert that ex-EEML members, such as MVBW above, are exploiting their new names to distance themselves from their past, while at the same time acting in (seeming) concert to protect each other. Most recently, MVBW came to my talk page to warn me regarding my interaction with Volunteer Marek (aka Radeksz). I assumed MVBW was an uninvolved editor, so phrases directed at me such as "It would be a very good idea to drop all Polish issues" and "Did not you get it yet? One thing that surprises me most is inability of people to admit reality. NPOV does not matter. RS does not matter. The only thing that matters is WP:CONSENSUS. It means the following: if there is a group of people who really do not like your edits, and you do not leave their turf, you will be banned." seemed quite strong (and slightly mysterious, given the circumstances). Two days ago I realised who MVBW was - and now it clicks into place. I now have the feeling I was being warned off by someone who was not neutral at all, to leave VMarek alone (I'd complained about his aggressive behaviour, you see). For the record, a few years ago the EEML descended on an AFD of a page I created and voted to delete. The page was reinstated later, when I heard about the EEML and mentioned it to admins. In view of this, I feel very annoyed when people like Radeksz (who voted to delete), change their name but stay editing similar topics and it takes me a while to realise who they really are (in VM's case - a few months). For this reason, while I have not checked all the alleged cases of Paul Siebert mentioning the EEML, I can imagine that there could have been perfectly appropriate situations for doing so. Once bitten, twice shy.

Furthermore, if EEML members change their name - they should promise to not act in any way which might even give another editor the suspicion they are acting in concert. Piotrus, for example, also pops up from time to time to give me a shot across the bows when he dislikes my tone with VM. It's all a little sinister. Malick78 (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tried to help you and Marek by mediating your conflict at your talk page and the appropriate noticeboard [95], [96], [97], but I do not see how this is relevant to Igny. If anything, this example with Malick shows how damaging the claims about "EEML" are. This should stop. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning me off "all Polish issues" was trying to help me? Now knowing the context, it sounds more like a threat veiled as advice. Malick78 (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Response to Malick78: This is just stupid. From what I can tell MVBW was just trying to be nice and friendly to you and you turn it around and construct some conspiracy. Here's a hint - some of the other EEML members are genuinely sympathetic to you because of your "anti-Russian" edits. But you're too paranoid and too soaked through with the whole battleground mentality to notice that. Way to make friends and avoid battlegrounds.

I haven't talked to any of these guys off wiki, not even an innocent "how you doing" emails, for a very very long time. You're pulling crap out of thin air, mostly to justify your own disruptive behavior elsewhere, which is actually completely unrelated to this report or this topic (Occupation of Baltic States). If you are even dimly aware of the situation then you should realize that former EEML members don't agree with each other on a whole host of topics (for example, I disagree a lot with Estlandia, who's involved here). I'm also nowhere near this dispute so why are you trying to drag me into it?

You're using this as a venue for your own personal grudges and perpetuating battleground behavior (you have done this on several occasions before - showed up to an AE report which did not involve you in any way, shape or matter, jumped right into the peanut gallery, and tried to derail the topic to some irrelevancy; basically the textbook definition of "battleground mentality"). Drop the stick, go away, and stop trying to drag me into it. Stop trying to pour gasoline on the fire, that's not what AE is supposed to be for.

BTW, your article Spieprzaj dziadu! (which is apparently the source of this grudge - from 3 freakin' years ago!) was originally deleted because it was badly sourced, potentially ran afoul of WP:BLP (as pointed out by the famous EEML member User:Hersfold) and violated WP:NOTNEWS. AfDs are usually closed on merits not on votes. It then got restored out of some post-EEML pity, and should probably be renominated for deletion now that enough time has passed. VolunteerMarek 16:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you merely in passing; my point was that Paul Siebert is right that mentioning EEML links can be valid, and that name changes hide identities - good for ex-EEML members, sometimes bad for those who interact with them.Malick78 (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good way to fix that would be to go back to the case pages and update the old usernames to new usernames so they'd align. I'd be happy to support such a change but this isn't the venue to bring that up.VolunteerMarek 16:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, I think you're referring to the wrong user; I've never been a member of the EEML list, nor was I on the Committee or a clerk for that case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I am most certainly referring to the super sekrit famous EEML member User:Hersfold who voted "delete" on Malick's article nomination fulfilling the instructions handed down to him from the heightest of EEML authorities. More seriously, I was referring to you, and you did vote in that AfD, but there was an obvious joke in there.VolunteerMarek 04:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand now. My suit-and-sunglass-wearing associates here would like to talk to you about how you came across that information, however.... ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Vecrumba

I noticed this because the enforcement page is on my watchlist, not because of any notification thereof.

The allegations of some sort of "POV shift" to the [implied] nationalist side is a deflection from the escalation of ever more fantastical statements of alleged historical facts and inappropriate and inflammatory apples and oranges comparisons pertaining to the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, e.g., Truman killed more innocent Japanese in one fell swoop than Stalin killed in all the Baltics—"Yes, Stalin occupied the Baltic states, but Truman bombed Tokyo and Hiroshima (where more innocent civilian died).", spilling over from prior and parallel discussion at Talk:World War II and other Latvia in WWII fighting against the Soviet Union, "an Ally," related article discussions. Quite frankly, I can only hope that the feedback that I've simply been misunderstanding is correct.

The alleged title issue at the heart of the alleged dispute here (Igny, tagging) is a red herring for reasons which have been discussed ad absurdum in the past, short version:

article on the 1940 Soviet occupation and annexation (in 1940) of Baltic states is appropriately titled
article on the entire period of Soviet->Nazi->Soviet occupation of the Baltic states should not include annexation in the title as that act occurred in 1940 and only applied to Soviet actions, nor should references to that entire period of three occupations by two occupying powers inappropriately include "and annexation."

Rehashing past contentions of POV when nothing has changed and consensus is therefore unlikely to change is not constructive editorial behavior.

And on top of the provocations already in play, UUNC's "invited" participation has only sharpened the alleged "conflict" with UUNC's pushing of blatantly false Soviet historiography. It is exactly this sort of pointless conflict (except, IMO, for the purpose of conflict) that has driven many knowledgeable and superior editors on the Baltics away from Wikipedia. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vecrumba, the discussion you refer to was the discussion about the order of the belligerents in the WWII infobox, and it had absolutely no relation to the occupation of the Baltic states. In addition, you simply took my words out of context and presented me as Stalin's apologist: obviously, for every reasonable person it should be clear that during that discussion I just presented two examples of questionable steps made by Soviet and American leaders, which, obviously, had no effect on relative military contribution of those two powers into common war efforts. If you didn't understand that, I hope, this my explanation has put all the dots over i's. In future, do not repeat this your false argument, because that your step will be considered as a personal attack.

Regarding the second part of your post, that is a content dispute, and I see no need to discuss it here. I also recommend you to retract your accusations against UUNC: you may agree or disagree with his nationalist point of view (frankly speaking, all "national patriotic views" have equally unpleasant odour), but I see no indications of violation of WP policy by this user.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh.

Indicating that a statement is intrinsically inappropriate and offensive ipso facto is not a personal attack.
You did bring up the content briefly, a succinct counter-response was completely appropriate in this venue.
As for UUNC, advocating, for example, that a scholar who lies about basic facts of history is a reliable source, having been invited/created/participated as a WP:SPA, really, how can that possibly be construed to be constructive?

Consider that if someone points out something is inappropriate and offensive, it's not because they simply don't agree with you.

Frankly speaking, I don't understand why you've chosen to take a special and escalating interest of late in pouring gasoline on the fire regarding anything involving the Latvians and Soviets in WWII. In that context, other articles are not immaterial to your current participation in the alleged dispute at Occupation of the Baltic states. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't "indicate that a statement is inappropriate", you took my words out of context, thereby presenting me as Stalin's apologist. Again, the discussion you refer to was about the relative military contributions of the US and the USSR, and the purpose of my argument was to demonstrate that the amount of misdeeds and the military contribution into common war efforts are two totally unrelated things.

I see no indication of violation of any rules by UUNC (except probably the fact that someone has drawn his attention to this discussion). He used normal instruments of dispute resolution. Thus, instead of arguing with you he went to WP:RSN, as I advised him, and he seem to listen the opinion of uninvolved users there. I suggest to stop indirect personal attacks against this user: if this user is not a sock, your activity strongly resembles uncivil baiting of newcomers. BTW, if someone will start SPI against this user, I cannot predict a result, however, until SPI provided us with an indication that something is wrong with this user we must be civil with him.

Re your question about Latvia and the USSR, it was not me who started that. You yourself started a thread on the WWII talk page, which gradually developed to the following main thesis: the USSR occupied Latvia, therefore it cannot be considered as a major ally (I beg your pardon for some oversimplification, you also mentioned other states occupied by the USSR, but Latvia had gradually became a focus of this discussion). In a response, I argued that Latvia was a neutral state, and later the Latvians fought on the Axis side (and even actively participated in the Holocaust; upon reading sources I realised that the scale of their participation was much greater then I thought before), and, therefore, any Soviet actions against Latvia did not diminish the scale of the military contribution of the USSR into the Allied war efforts. In any event, I cannot understand what relation all of that has to the edit war between Igny and the opposing tag team, and I see absolutely no reason to discuss that on this page. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to either realize or acknowledge that there is no so-called "context" which excuses inappropriate comparisons or contentions. That you accuse me of calling you an apologist for Stalin for pointing out such inappropriateness indicates you're fully aware of the implications of your statements. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(od) As an aside, regarding "Currently, we have several new sources that directly support the Igny's thesis about annexation. Therefore, in that situation, renewal of the discussion is quite legitimate." There is no new historical position which has been put forward which has prompted fresh discussed. Only the rhetoric has escalated in line with prior expressions. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no new positions, but it is a weighty support of one of existing positions. However, that will be a subject of our future content disputes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that to mean you will endeavour to avoid any future comparison disputes. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

frankly speaking, I simply didn't understand your allusions. May be, it makes sense to return to the talk page? I presented some fresh arguments taken from the articles authored by one Estonian and one Russian professors.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sander Säde

I am sorry for not responding sooner - I was away, giving a few lectures in Tartu.

My comment was not aimed at or about Igny or Paul Siebert - the sole purpose of the far more extreme language than I use normally was to make sure Vecrumba notices and understands my warning.

It is no secret that Vecrumba (or any other editor, really) will lose his calm if continuously baited, a tactic used against him semi-successfully before. I saw a worrying degradation in Vecrumba's tone in several ongoing discussions - and furthermore, an obvious sock (or self-proclaimed meatpuppet) popped up. So I decided to warn him, in hopes we would not have to endure another round of AE - and yet, here we go again...

Paul - I sincerely apologize for any anguish I might have caused to you. I would never call you a racist troll. We have our differences of opinion, but I've never doubted your editorial integrity. I will leave this message also to your talk, to make sure you'll get it.

--Sander Säde 16:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ T. Canens

Do you really believe no tag teaming (e.g. WP:NINJA) took place in this case? In addition, you mentioned WP:ARBEE, but what about WP:EEML? I believe, however, that addition of notations is not required for the ex-EEML members whose behaviour caused noone's concern. Regarding UUNC, do you think his edit history is long enough to judge if he is an SPA? If he is a meatpuppet, then who is a "meatmaster"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul. According to the policy, "recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited", and that is exactly what happened, according to UUNC own statement [98] and his edits: he came to influence decisions on this AE page. Who recruited him is probably less important. He did not answer. Usually this is someone who edits the same page, has the same POV, and was engaged in discussion at the moment of his recruitment (per WP:DUCK). As about the alleged "tag team", the reverts were made by four editors, two of whom were not involved in EEML affair (which is a "dead horse" for a couple of years), and two others (Estlandia and Nug) happen to disagree on a variety of issues and usually do not support each other. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without Estlandia, we could not speak about violation of 3RR by Igny. The fact that other two editors (Collect and Toddy78) preferred to revert, instead of addressing my legitimate concern is an indication of their own battleground behaviour. Igny's problem was that his supporters demonstrated far less battleground behaviour than his opponents did.

Re UUNC, is anything else (except his own statement he made in very beginning) in his behaviour that may serve as an indication of his meatpuppetry? --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of evidence about UUNC. This is all standard analysis. While looking at his first statement, one should look at the context (previous comment which appears in the same diff) and at the character of the statement (this is typical WP:SOAP unsupported by any refs). Then, one should look at other actions by UUNC [99]. He immediately goes to three administrative noticeboards: 3RR, ANI and AE, specifically to support Igny. He even tells that he is a more experienced wikifighter than Igny [100]. I do not think we need another experienced wikifighter in this subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your post implies UUNC's deep familiarity with Wikipedia rules. However, you cannot blame him both in sock and meatpuppetry simultaneously. If you expect him to be familiar with our policy you imply he is a sock (theoretically, I cannot rule it out). In that case you should either find out whose sock he is (by filing SPI), or stop your attack. And, frankly speaking, I'll be satisfied with both outcomes. If he is a meatpuppet, then he is definitely a newbie, which mean that soapboxing, or other minor violations are totally forgivable (for first few weeks). I also cannot rule out a possibility that someone third party that follows this discussion, but does not participate in it, simply told him: "look, there is an interesting discussion on the Occupation of the Baltic states talk page. Join it if you have something to say." Such a possibility cannot be ruled out, and I see no violations from UUNC's side in that case. I am inclined to believe in that because the alternative explanation is that he is either my or Igny's meatpuppet. I believe noone can accuse me in meatpuppetry (I have no need in such assistance). Igny believes that UUNC is someone's sock, and does not consider UUNC's contribution helpful. Of course, we cannot 100% trust Igny's words, however, to believe UUNC is his meatpuppet would be strange.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is either sockpuppet or meatpuppet (evidence is overhelming). In both cases this account must be blocked. My very best wishes (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there have been any actual personal attacks--as opposed to the endless allegations which have lost all impact or meaning--they are UUNC's, that Igny is "not experienced enough at Wikipedia battling unlike his opponents." Enough said. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if he is a sock or meatpuppet, please either prove that or stop your allegations, because it strongly resembles personal attacks or newbie baiting. I have double feeling about UUNC: from one hand, I cannot rule out a possibility of sock/meatpuppetry, from another hand, I remember a strange case of the user:The Last Angry Man, who was believed to be a sock, and who even was blocked as a sock, but who eventually was unblocked, although there was a disagreement among the admins about that. Whereas the fact of sockpuppetry was obvious for some users, we see that that appeared to be not the case. Therefore, it is dangerous to trow such accusations until you get unequivocal evidences. Under "dangerous" I meant not a danger for yourself, but a danger to offend innocents. This thread has relation to Stalinism, and, as far as I know, one of Stalinists maximae was "it is better to punish 100 innocent persons than to leave one criminal unpunished". Ironically, this maxima seems to find more support among those who declared themselves as "anti-Stalinists".

@ VєсrumЬа. As Sander Sade correctly noted, sometimes you lose your calm, and that may eventually inflict sanctions on you. In connection to that, let me leave your last posts unanswered.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was Sander who lost his calm after "innocent" claim by UUNC that Balts treat Russians exactly as Nazi treated Jews [101]. He just used one wrong word about UUNC. What he meant was "nationalist troll".My very best wishes (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Sander Sade meant UUNC, he could explain that by himself. I have to concede you were partially right, UUNC's post does contain a comparison between Russians in Baltics and Jews in Germany. However, the exact wording was "strikingly resembling those the initial Nazi legislation against Jews", so you read and interpreted that inaccurately. UUNC didn't write the Balts treat Russians exactly as Nazi treated Jews: he writes about initial legislation, when the Jews had been deprived of their German citizenship (of course, that is just my interpretation of his words). Your mistake is an additional indication that you are too emotional, so any continuation of this discussion will lead just to escalation of the conflict. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UUNC as a sock/meatpuppet

Upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that this issue deserves more detailed analysis. Frankly speaking, sock/meatpuppetry is quite possible in that case, and I would like to consider possible sockmasters. Although I know that UUNC is not my sock, my assurances are insufficient, so I must behave as a devil's advocate and assume my bad faith. Therefore, the first possible sockmaster is user:Paul Siebert, other candidates are TFD, user:Greyhood, and user:Igny. Other past or present participants either share the opposite point of view or they are not knowledgeable enough (whereas it is possible to imitate the lack of knowledge, the opposite is unlikely). So...

user:Paul Siebert, uses western sources almost exclusively, whereas UUNC relies upon the works published in Russian. Paul Siebert does not deny that he knows Russian, however, he prefers to rely on English peer-reviewed sources (most of which are not available for wide public). UUNC relies exclusively on the openly published sources. UUNC seems to be more proficient in English, and it is highly unlikely that Paul Siebert had been concealing his language ability specifically for this case. Conclusion: it is unlikely that Paul Siebert is a UUNC's sockmaster.
user:Greyhood. As far as I know, the privileges of this user had never been restricted Greyhood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and he it is not on notice per WP:ARBEE (in contrast to the overwhelming majority of other participants of this dispute. I see no reason for sockpuppetry. Conclusion: it is highly unlikely that Greyhood is a UUNC's sockmaster.
TFD they have never been blocked The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The TFD's topic ban per WP:ARBEE was lifter on 10 May 2011 (UTC). TFD is an experienced user and I see no reason for him to play this game. In addition, it is highly unlikely that TFD knows Russian. Conclusion: it is highly unlikely that TFD is a UUNC's sockmaster.
user:Igny. Igny's comment on sudden appearance of UUNC was as follows I do not know much about UUNC. I suspect he is a WP:SOCK, but I have no clear idea who was behind him. There were a multitude of pro-Russian editors banned from EE (including, to my surprise, Russiavia) UUNC could be any one of them. That is not an evidence per se, but it is highly unlikely that Igny's sock can start his activity with the words: "I was invited to comment". Conclusion: it is unlikely that Igny is a UUNC's sockmaster.

In addition to that, I got one more evidence that UUNC is neither a sock nor meatpuppet of any of above users. The evidence is this UUNC post [102]. In this post, UUNC cites the interview with a Russian author Khudoley. According to Nug, Khudoley fully supports the Baltic thesis about occupation (see Nug's posts [103], [104], and many others), and that was a strong argument. However, in the interview Khudoley states that he does not support a thesis about occupation. Obviously, had TFD, Greyhood, Igny or I known about this Khudoley's opinion, we would immediately use this fact as a counter-argument. Base on that I conclude that UUNC is a new person, who acts independently from previous participants of the dispute. With regard to meatpuppetry, the only argument we currently have is UUNC's own declaration. However, taking into account that no RfCs or votes had been open that could be affected by UUNC's vote, and that NNUC didn't join a revert war [105], I see no reason to speak about his meatpuppetry. I strongly disagree with T Canens on that account, and respectfully request him to comment on this my post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ EdJohnson. I would like to see concrete evidences against UUNC (other than his awkward initial statement). The accusation in sockpuppetry is supposed to be supported by SPI, but whose sock he is? Can you point at least at one candidate? Regarding meatpuppetry, there were no RfCs, no votes, no revert wars UUNC joined (in contrast to Estlandia). UUNC tries to resolve disputes over sources at WP:RSN and he obeys the community verdict. What was his concrete violation? Please, explain.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the POV tag, firstly, Igny's reverts were triggered by Nug's unilateral change of the template name. Secondly, it is not necessary that Igny's thinking needs to change. Another possibility exists, for example, that, in light of new evidences, the change of the article's title may become obvious. Currently, we have several new sources that directly support the Igny's thesis about annexation. Therefore, in that situation, renewal of the discussion is quite legitimate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Sander Säde

AGK's claim "in enforcing an arbitration decision, we rarely make copious assumptions of good faith" with respect to civility issues does not align with past practice. For example in the past when I was personally attacked as a "right wing extremist" espousing "ethnic nationalist POV" and that person refused to apologise, I brought that person to this page[106] and after a long discussion he finally apologised to me after the admins here threatened to sanction him. The admins here accepted that apology in good faith and the matter was closed without action.

Sander apologised for his remarks here at AE[107] and at Paul Siebert's talk page[108], which Paul accepted[109], before the first admin arrived here to comment[110].

I do not understand the basis of this inconsistency, accepting User:The Four Deuces's apology in good faith after much arm twisting while rejecting User:Sander Säde freely volunteered apology before any admin intervention. While both have previously be formally noticed under WP:ARBEE, only TFD has actually been previously sanctioned with an indefinite topic ban subsequently lifted, yet his apology was accepted but Sander's apparently not.

Given that someone has taken note of AGK's comment in another case below, is AGK speaking on the Arbitration Committee's behalf when he made this comment? What aspect of Sander's edit history, which consists mainly of reverting vandalism[111], compelled AGK as Arbitrator to apparently intervene in an area that normally is subject to the patrolling admin's discretion? --Nug (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Igny

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

For the record I wasn't canvassed, or requested off wiki to make a block. I came to this thread, as per a request on WP:AN for more administrators to help patrol. I saw that Igny (talk · contribs) was on (now) his fifth 3RR violation, and 3RR is a bright line rule, so I made the block. I have also declined the unblock request made by Nug. Looking at this, and obviously I'm looking for other uninvolved admin comments, I see that Igny is not only failing to observe the reason for his ban a few months ago, but it continuing failing to observe community guidelines about editing, and not willing to engage properly in the Dispute resolution process. I also see that Sander Säde (talk · contribs) attacked other editors, maybe not a few specifically, but it's still an attack towards editors. I think we now need a block on Igny and/or a further ban in the same effect as the last one. Also a block may need to be issued for Sander Sade, but i'm willing to considering letting it go per the blocking policy and assuming good faith. I would like comments from other uninvolved admins about length and if I missed anything. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Sander Säde's comment at 17:30, 17 June 2012: in enforcing an arbitration decision, we rarely make copious assumptions of good faith, and I would advise against excessive leniency in respect of any editor's actions. After-the-fact admissions of misjudgement may likewise be taken into account only as a secondary factor. AGK [•] 14:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very briefly: I think an indef topic ban for Igny is in order. Time-limited bans do not work for this user - they simply sit it out and then come back for more of the same. For Sander Säde, I'm not particularly inclined to block four days after the fact, but some other sanction might be considered. As to UUNC, I'm inclined to either indef topic ban as an agenda-driven SPA, or indef block as a meatpuppet. As to the renames, I think that at the very least, a notation should be added to the log section of WP:ARBEE. T. Canens (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the page earlier, waiting for some further comments. Based on the comments, I tend to agree with T. Canens above on pretty much all his points. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the previous AE from last October which led to Igny being topic banned for six months. It is hard to overlook that Igny was warring about the same POV tag both before and after that ban, so we can have no confidence that his thinking has changed. I join T. Canens in supporting an indefinite topic ban for Igny, and an indefinite topic ban for UUNC as well. Regarding Sander Säde: due to his personal attacks, and the fact he is not a new editor, I'd suggest a three-month topic ban. No objection if any admin wants to add a note in the ARBEE log to record the new names of all the participants who have changed their names. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raeky

No action taken. T. Canens (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Raeky

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Fifelfoo (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions

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

20120622 Inserting copyviolinks and non-existent publications into a pseudoscience article (Principles 4a 11 12)

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

user indicates they are aware of sanctions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User seems to have a deep problem with reliable sourcing policy, including use of primaries, use of inappropriate sources, misweighting of unrepresentative sources, and citation policy. Events arose out of an existing RS/N report which was subsequently identified as a major sourcing problem by the RS/N community due to the hundreds of links in article space.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Raeky

Statement by Raeky

Wow, by using WP:BRD to revert a deletion of sourced material and sources that I felt was invalid, then bringing it to your talk page, which is all clearly visible to read, you state I violated the general sanction by first wanting some consensus before deletion of SOURCED material that has been acceptable sourcing for A VERY LONG TIME in these articles. After a couple days by a couple editors at WP:RS/N that a series of websites that encompass thousand+ links in these pages under these sanctions are invalid and copyright infringement with what seems dubious at best. Regardless I still don't see how these sources are invalid, if the issue is you think AIG is copyright infringing (proof?) creation.com's magazines, then link directly to creation.com's archives of all the articles, don't just blanket delete sources and statements stating "I can't find them, so it's not a valid source" when clearly they're available and you just didn't even bother to look. (the two listed here at the top). I would just WP:BOOMARANG this back since Fifelfoo said we should just delete all YEC articles because WP:RS/N said so that combined with the wholesale deleteion of sourced material from these articles and not listening to the first person to raise concerns as more in violation of this sanction then merely an editor exerting cation and restraint, calling for discussion before deleteing sourced material in controversial articles. — raeky t 03:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: EdJohnston: What I was saying is that for YEC articles, we need to represent what they believe, and I was responding to the sentiment that we can't use these journals as sources (even properly linked directly from CMI, so no copyright issues) for their views since they're not scientific peer-reviewed journals. What I was saying is their views are not scientific so we'd never have them represented in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so if we're going to represent them we're going to need to use these unscientific poor excuses at a journal or other equally unscientifc poor sources. I don't think this is something that any regular editor of these articles is going to disagree with. Pseudoscience operates outside the purview of science and as a result all their publications are not going to be scientific. I don't mean that their views should ever be presented as accurate or with undue-weight and should always be countered with actual science, but to source their views we're going to have to use these poor sources? I don't see how this is not understanding any of the policies covering this area, it seems common sense. — raeky t 02:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Raeky

AiG is not the publisher of Technical Journal and its hosting of contents is an apparent copyright violation. Technical Journal is a fringe christian apologetics journal, lacking any indication of weight in the fringe apologetics community, and lacking any indication of editorial review within its own limited fringe community. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Moreover, in this instance, Technical Journal had two copyright violating links replaced with citations, and one claim "The Christian apologetics site Answers in Genesis, for example, makes frequent appeals to concepts from information theory in its objections to evolution and affirmations of the Genesis account of Creation; "[I]t should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation."" that manifestly cannot be attached to Technical Journal as Technical Journal is not an organ of Answers in Genesis, removed. The source was retained as it supported a general point regarding fringe community views. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this is where the WP:BRD comes into play, the big discuss part. I'm not saying that the deleteion is invalid, I just wanted further discussion of it before it happens, which is pretty much common practice on these articles. The resoning seems fairly sound, but it's possible AiG has supportive information on there, or it could be reworded to use the journal article to make the same point without attributing it to AiG, so wholesale deleteion of the claim may not be appropriate. Again going back to discussion and getting consensus part, that's how we build a reliable encyclopedia. Taking it upon yourself to whitewash a thousand sources with minimal consensus and virtually zero discussion on the articles affected is bound to meet some resistance specifically when they've been using these sources for A LONG TIME without them being questioned. — raeky t 04:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):Again, which I asked, do you have anything to back up that AiG doesn't have permission to republish the material on their site, by their Use Policy it seems pretty clear they understand copyright and the two organizations are clearly in the same camp and Creation.com makes available all the material on their website as well. Again I don't have an issue with switching links away from AiG for these journal articles, or even removal of them because of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, afterall I'm clearly in the atheist camp. But what I had an issue with was just because you THINK AiG violated copyright of these journals that your using that to blanket delete a 1000+ references to AiG. Where is your evidence that AiG is not a reliable source for christian apologetic movement? But you're clearly not using your best judgement when you say an article doesn't exist, see [112] when that article does [113], not that I agree with this article at all, but it does exist... — raeky t

"Other shit has existed forever" means you've been operating in a walled garden and failing to pay attention to the reliable sourcing requirements on wikipedia. AiG is not the publisher of Technical Journal. They are hosting the material on their site. They have no indication that they are a valid copyright holder. It is the same as megauploads of pdfs, it is a suspected copyright violation and needs to be dealt with by finding the original source and citing it if possible, and by removing the link. As you could see from WP:RS/N/L there are less than 100 Technical Journal infringement issues in the list for AiG potential inappropriate use of sources. When people make bare copyright infringing links to articles called (varyingly, and impossible to tell except by hyperlink) "Creation" and "Creation ex nihilo", and the website serving the articles doesn't supply the journal title it becomes difficult to search, especially when a search for a volume and issue of "Creation" brings forth an entirely different journal published by one of these two incestuous but distinct apologetics organisations. Capacity to bear WEIGHT needs to be demonstrated. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The journal is published by CMI which Ken Ham used to be part of and left to form AiG, they clearly have ties and links, and are basically sub-sets of each-other. So to make the claim AiG doesn't have permission to publish material is dubious, imho. If these sites where entirely unconnected, their founders entirely unlinked, then I'd say you may have a case, but by their history it makes it MORE LIKELY, CMI is entirely willing to let AiG archive their material in their big website of articles, it makes logical sense given what AiG is claiming to be. The legal tiff between CMI and Ken Ham didn't seem to involve anything about copyright, you'd think if they sued him for misrepresenting their views of christanity or whatever it was about, if he was blatantly violating their copyrights too they'd also mention that? I don't see supporting evidence that AiG is in copyright violation, but if you want to take the cautious approch, does that mean all articles on AiG are now invalid and copyright infringement, that the whole site is unusable? I donno, but I don't see much consensus here by people who edit these articles, and know a lot about this stuff.. *shrug* Regardless someone else needs to weigh in here and let us know if I'm really violating the general sanctions with a WP:BRD revert or not, I'm voting not. — raeky t 04:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that AiG does not display a licence to republish CMI material anywhere on their site? Linking to AiG's "copy" of CMI's content is not acceptable on wikipedia then. Additionally, AiG lacks any credibility as a library or archive (see their absence of collections or accessions policy), we cannot believe that AiG transmit complete intact invariant copies. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to defend AiG as a reliable source since most of the material on their site is made-up outright lies and other crazy nonsense, what I was stating that it would be a little odd for AiG to blatently violate CMI's copyrights since CMI has already sued AiG in the past (not about copyrights but about differences in faith message or some crazyness), to me it would be odd that the organizaton would risk further provoking them. That and Ken Ham has had past connections with CMI and it wouldn't be unreasonable that they share material to further their crazy agenda. I don't care that AiG is being removed as a valid source, I just didn't have any information about it other than you stating that it was a copyright violation with your content removal, if you had provided a link to the discussion in your edit summary, a lot of this would of been avoided tbh. — raeky t 04:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by uninvolved Paul Siebert

Brief analysis demonstrates that the source used by raeky t is hardly reliable, and definitely is not mainstream. Technical Journal is not in the Thompson-Reuter ISI list. A part of text added by this user is a verbatim quote from the web site he cites. That seems to comply with our WP:NFCC rules.
In connection to that, I am wondering if Fifelfoo asked for community opinion on the WP:RSN regarding reliability of Technical Journal, and if Fifelfoo asked here about the possible copyright problems with the usage of content from that web site. I think that the issue could be easily resolved by going to those two noticeboards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Journal was rejected by RS/N prior to these discussions: a link to AiG (the probably copyright violating site) initiated a broader reliability discussion regarding AiG, that uncovered up to 1000 potential inappropriate uses, RS/N found the issue relating to links to AiG to be sufficiently large as a reliability issue to launch a new subnoticeboard WP:RS/N/L to deal with resolving large scale clean-ups related to possible reliability issues. (Quite a number of Technical Journal links remain intact, with full citations now instead of barelinks, and with the link pointing to the actual publisher of Technical Journal where the issue is a WEIGHTing issue, rather than a clear unreliable use) 01:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Then you should probably provide the diffs. Add them to your initial statement as a demonstration of your good faith attempts to resolve the issue by ordinary means.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donno what y'all are talking about, all I saw was him removing content on a highly controversial page simply stating AiG was a copyright violation, no links to any discussions, all that was discovered AFTER I did a precautionary revert asking for some additional information than just his word that it was a copyright violation going under the belief that a long-held source wouldn't really be an issue. This previous discussion at RSN was held about completely unconnected pages than what I watch and didn't know about it until I started looking at his edits to see what was going on. So any issue that this thing is trying to address in my behavior is my doing a BRD revert on his content removal stating that we'll need more info and to discuss it first, unaware there was some hidden unlinked too discussion about it already. — raeky t 04:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Raeky

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

This whole thread strikes me as making a mountain out of a molehill. We can formally notify Raeky of the discretionary sanctions, but other than that I don't really see any reason for us to exercise our (sparingly used) discretion to find constructive warning and impose a sanction for that single revert. T. Canens (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The statements by Raeky such as the one here suggest that he doesn't understand our copyright policy or our standards about notability when it comes to fringe groups. This is enough for a warning under WP:ARBPS, and if he continues to not understand policy some future action might be needed. Our rules about WP:Reliable sources don't get suspended when Wikipedia is trying to provide objective coverage of fringe beliefs. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked further into the question of copyright violation, I no longer see a problem with Raeky's conduct. The single edit cited by the submitter should still not be repeated by Raeky unless he gets consensus. There could still be a question whether answersingenesis.com ought to be accepted as a reliable source for the text of an article that was said to be published in Technical Journal. This question should be up to editor consensus. I suggest this report be closed with no action.

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Scopes Trial, it seems there could be a valid question as to the usage of answersingenesis.com in an article such as Scopes trial. The conclusions from a pseudoscience do not appear to have relevance to the interpretation of a well-known historical event. However, this AE report doesn't bring us a conduct issue on that point, so there is not yet a match between a perceived problem and what the WP:ARBPS sanctions are supposed to cover. The submitter of this AE did not assert that Raeky (or anyone else) is edit warring or is arguing against policy to maintain links to answersingenesis from articles that should not have them. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POVbrigand

POVbrigand (talk · contribs) indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions related to cold fusion or fringe sciences, with an appeal contingent on the user publicly revealing their old account(s). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning POVbrigand

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: IRWolfie- (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision#Discretionary_sanctions

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

[114] Last paragraph, it reveals the WP:POINTYness of bringing the BaBar Experiment to FTN: "But in the meantime it would be good if we can stop being so hostile towards anything that is in conflict with this shaky standard model".

Admission of pointyness: [115] My request was mostly tongue-in-cheek,

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

Previous arbitration enforcement request (no admins responded) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive109#POVbrigand

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The SPA Cold fusion advocate User:POVbrigand, (see also the user page [116] and the subpages: Special:PrefixIndex/User:POVbrigand/ for advocacy) has started to engage in very WP:POINTY disruptive behavior on the fringe theories noticeboard by bringing the BaBar_experiment to the noticeboard: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#BaBar_experiment. He said his ulterior motive wasn't the Cold Fusion article, but this line at the end shows to the contrary: "it would be good if we can stop being so hostile towards anything that is in conflict with this shaky standard model. ". The comment shows that this sort of disruption of the noticeboard is in the hopes of promoting a weakening of guidelines on Cold Fusion and not about the BaBar experiment, despite initial claims to the contrary. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[117]

Discussion concerning POVbrigand

Statement by POVbrigand

I didn't want to upset people like this, maybe I should have known better, but it looked a good idea at the time. I honestly believed other editors would take it as I intended.

I have promised on FTN that I will not use this tongue in cheek style again. In the past I have brought other topics at FTN in a normal sincere voice and that worked better in that I didn't hurt anyone's feelings.

I did want to start a discussion about whether the claim "standard model is flawed" is currently fringe or not. And I also wanted to discuss what this "standard model is flawed" means to finge topic that are releated to the standard model. I got the discussion I wanted, SteveBaker's explanation that the claim might be called a "fringe hypothesis" is satisfying for me.

So technically I feel that I did not misuse the noticeboard, but I admit I used the wrong style and I understand that other editors might feel betrayed or ridiculed. I didn't want that to happen, I apologize.

I am very sure that it was not POINTY. I did want to make a point, but I did not make disruptive article edits.

My activity on cold fusion is already slowly starting to wane, I am much more relaxed about the whole topic than say a year ago.

I solemny swear that I will not be mischievous again.

Very important, I want to highlight about this arbcom request:

It is the second time IRWolfie is requesting Arbcom against me, he is persistently trying to find reasons or missteps to get me banned. I have the feeling that he hates my guts.
SA / VanishedUser is commenting here in this ArbCom case, he would really enjoy to see me get banned [118]
I am not a sock of anyone. Any checkuser can easily verify that the IP adresses I edit from (home/work) are from a geolocate that is absolutely not related to any old banned user. My old account was absolutely harmless (no blocks, no editing contentious articles) and it was not used very much in the last years. The reason that I started a new account was that my old account name might out me, which I didn't want for a contentious topic.

I think that I know what the spirit of wikipedia is about. I am sincere 99% of the time and trying to improve things.

If I read the comments here it seems to boil down to editors wanting me blocked or banned, because they feel that I wasted their time in the discussion. I think that is a bit far fetched. IRWolfie made two or three comments in the thread, Amble also made just a few. SteveBaker wrote most of the comments and I thank him for the discussion. What I did was not disruptive, I did not misuse the noticeboard by bringing up the discussion.

The other point that is brought up as a reason to ban me is the fact that I am suspected for being a sock of Pcarbonn. The banned user SA / VanishedUser is arguing here on this arbcom case that I am a sock of Pcarbonn, previously he had argued that I was a sock of Lossisnotmore [119]. I have recently helped enforce Arbcom against his persistent ban evasion [120]

All the edits I have made on cold fusion were not disruptive, the talk page edits were not disruptive. I think that all in all my work can be judged as perfectly acceptable. There is nothing in my activity of the last few months that justifies a block or ban. I do not try to sell cold fusion as mainstream, but I do have a valid but different opinion regarding NPOV than some other editors, hence my username. In the last months I think we managed pretty well to get some agreement on NPOV for the cold fusion article.

I think that a few editors will be very please to see me banned, because they simply to hate my presence. They have taken this opportunity and they might get through with it, but I think it will not make WP a better place.

As IRWolfie suggested below I also suggest interested admins also look at the archived case he brought against me. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive109#POVbrigand. Also look at the repsonses by other editors supporting me. It seems to me that with this case he is trying to right the perceived wrong that I wasn't banned back then. --POVbrigand (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning POVbrigand

Comment by involved User:SteveBaker

I agree that this was clearly shown to be WP:POINTY in the end - I said as much on the fringe noticeboard. I'm concerned that POVbandit wasted everyone's time over on the fringe noticeboard with what turned out to be a self-admitted strawman. Technically, that constitutes disruptive editing - but I'm inclined to attribute this to over-zealousness rather than malice or bad faith. But since there is already an Arb decision on this that POVbandit is well aware of, perhaps he should have taken more care to make clear that this was a strawman rather than suggesting that the BaBar experiment article truly needed action due to some kind of infringement of WP:FRINGE. Mostly it was just a huge waste of time rather than being overtly damaging to the encyclopedia. SteveBaker (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by involved User:Hudn12

The user in question is clearly User:Pcarbonn (Evidence from User:POVbrigand: "I have / had another account since mid 2004 that I currently do not use." which aligns with User:Pcarbonn, he claims he was never blocked which is for the Pcarbonn account, though misleading because he was topic banned as a sanction of an arbitration case, and he points out that English and German are not his first languages: indeed Pcarbonn's first language is French.) The community should wonder why arbcomm would allow this user to return to the very WP:BATTLEGROUND so that he could plainly renew the same tactics for which he was sanctioned in the past: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold_fusion#Pcarbonn. The behavior of this user has simply not changed at all. He was banned for one year the last time. It didn't help. You should consider banning him for much longer and stop letting him hide behind "clean start" accounts where he just picks up where he leaves off.

Hudn12 (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hudn12 registered his account in Januari 16 2012, his edits were very often very similar to certain IP edits. Now he exhibits a lot of knowledge about banned users that were active long before he registered. To me it seems clear that Hudn12 has been active with another account before he registered in Januari this year. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by previously involved User:Hipocrite

It is impossible for POVbrigand to be Pcarbonn. POVbrigand's "clean start" was confirmed by Roger Davies. Pcarbonn is not eligible for a clean start, as he is subject to sanction. Hipocrite (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And when has an Arbitrator-confirmed "clean start" ever gone wrong? :P MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved User:Skinwalker

(e/c with Hipocrite) The notion that POVBrigand=Pcarbonn is interesting but is probably not compatible with arbitrator RandyDavies' statement that there are no overlapping article edits with the previous account. Then again, Arbcom has been known to be less than forthcoming about the past behavior of "cleanstart" accounts. POVBrigand's early attitude and knowledge of the relevant policy debates suggests that he was not unfamiliar with the fringe science topic area. Skinwalker (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we take the comment by the arbitrator at his word, it does not make it impossible for POVbrigand to be Pcarbonn. Davies writes that the account is: "not, strictly, an alternate account. The older account was disclosed to ArbCom last year. There's no time overlap (ie the older account was abandoned several weeks before POVbrigand started editing);there are no overlapping article edits; and the previous account's block log is clean." Indeed this is the case as to the letter of what is written. Note that WP:CLEANSTART does not forbid accounts starting just because they were once subject to arbitration sanctions. It explicitly discourages with certain opprobrium "editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account" as well as counseling that the user that "[t]hese areas should be completely avoided by the editor attempting a clean start." But a close reading could convince us to permit behavior as we see it being exhibited while other interpretations would forbid so-called "clean start" accounts to ever interact in contentious areas. Roger Davies is being truthful while being evasive. Why he might be doing this, I can only surmise. 128.59.168.78 (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your close reading is quite correct. WP:CLEANSTART explicitly excludes editors subject to "active bans, blocks or sanctions". Pcarbonn (talk · contribs) has been subject to an indefinite topic ban from cold-fusion-related material since 11 January 2010 (logged here). The POVbrigand account was created on 29 May 2011, while Pcarbonn remained under sanction and thus ineligible for a "clean start". It's not exactly a gray area. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c with MastCell)I would be unsurprised to learn that POVBrigand's previous account edited fringe topics, participated in relevant policy discussions, and had conflicts with the dear, departed Vanished User 662607. I suppose the cleanstart-related question is whether or not the previous account's avoidance of cold fusion constitutes "technical virginity". Skinwalker (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had asked for clarification before as well from POVbrigand (who told me to raise a SPI or else bugger off.) and Roger Davies [121]. The account (whichever it is) isn't quite a clean start because there is an intention to re-use the account again (it's not deactivated). IRWolfie- (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that telling a editor to bugger of is justified when it seems to be a case of hounding [122] --POVbrigand (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by somewhat involved User:A13ean

I have previously tried to give this user the benefit of the doubt, in my previous interactions with them they appeared to be a SPA that mostly followed wikipedia regulations. This episode, however, seems a clear attempt to waste everyone's time just to fight over an unrelated point. This is neither helpful nor productive. a13ean (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Although multiple independent data points suggest a connection between POVbrigand and Pcarbonn, it will avoid complicating things if this is decided without taking that connection into account. My evaluation closely echoes that of User:A13ean above. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Roger Davies

Here's some background information on POVbrigand which may help:

This editor approached ArbCom to register an alternate account in December 2011.
The other account was/is clearly discontinued as it had last edited in May 2011.
In any event, it had made less than a hundred edits over five years, has no blocks or sanctions (or even warnings), nor editing overlaps.
There was no real reason to register the other account but some editors do demonstrate an excess of caution about their old accounts.
I am not aware with any connection with the Pcarbonn account.

That's the nitty gritty. Now it seems to me that a good question to ask is whether the creation of this present account with its unusual name is (i) to make good faith contributions to the topic or (ii) to seek attention/make some mischief, dancing about in the grey areas of policy in a contentious topic. Roger Davies ^talk 19:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by involved IRWolfie-

I have posted this separately to not detract from the original filling

I think POVbrigand's response here is also hard to take seriously. In what appears to be a case of Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing it seems he is still adamant that he has done nothing wrong and was not POINTY and disruptive: I am very sure that it was not POINTY. I did want to make a point, but I did not make disruptive article edits, (emphasis mine) clearly WP:POINTY but he is unwilling or unable to recognise that this is disruptive. I also suggest interested admins look at the archived case (which it should be noted that no admins commented at) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive109#POVbrigand.

On his specific edits aimed at me: This: I have the feeling that he hates my guts appears as an attempt to discredit me. I will note that my simple request for clarification on any limits on his new single purpose account [123] were met instead with bad faith assumptions: [124] in a section named "User bugging me" he remarked that "Ever since he failed to get me kicked of the project with that Arbcom case he is bugging me with the same insinuations", and this related discussion: [125]. As far as I am aware I have interacted with this account as I would any other in a similar situation.

I've just also seen this point by AGK above in an unrelated Enforcement discussion [126]: "in enforcing an arbitration decision, we rarely make copious assumptions of good faith, and I would advise against excessive leniency in respect of any editor's actions. After-the-fact admissions of misjudgement may likewise be taken into account only as a secondary factor." In this particular case we don't even have an after the fact admission for the core issue of WP:POINTY behaviour. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by involved Olorinish

Like IRWolfie, I am also uncomfortable with POVBrigand's comment above that "I am very sure that it was not POINTY. I did want to make a point, but I did not make disruptive article edits." since it indicates that he does not understand the seriousness of his infraction. Although the edits were not article edits, they were still disruptive because they caused editors to spend time reading and responding to his comments when they could be doing more productive things, either for wikipedia or elsewhere. Everyone here is a volunteer, so wasting other people's time should not be acceptable. The best way to convince him of that is to ban him for some period of time. Olorinish (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by involved User:Agricolae

As long as POVbrigand is counting coup, he can add me to the list of people who feel their time was wasted by his stunt, albeit for the last time. Agricolae (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning POVbrigand

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

That thread is ridiculous. Maybe a three month topic ban, from anything to do with CF or fringe science? T. Canens (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the thread in question is a canonical illustration of WP:POINT, and should trigger discretionary sanctions.
As an aside, I have never understood why this account is allowed to edit. It seems clearly illegitimate for an experienced editor to create an alternate account solely to promote one side of a contentious issue, per WP:SCRUTINY. I mean, seriously - can I just create a new account and make a few thousand edits promoting my pet beliefs, then come back to this account with a clean record? It makes no sense, especially in a topic area that's already seen massive problems with sockpuppetry, agenda-pushing, and tendentious editing. MastCell ^Talk 17:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of this type of alternate account either, and at the very least, there is a reasonable assertion saying that the editor may have had past experience or even sanctions in this topic area. If a 3 month topic ban can be supported (as per T. Canens), I propose that we make it indefinite instead, with an appeal contingent on the user publicly revealing their old account(s). NW (Talk) 18:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Works for me. T. Canens (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If no one objects in 12 hours or so, I'll close this implementing NuclearWarfare's solution. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, works for me too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GDallimore

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

Request concerning GDallimore

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: IRWolfie- (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions

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

[127] User:Fifelfoo removes a suspected copyright violation by Answers in Genesis from Creation ministries international's magazine . The copyright violation is the large scale copying of Creation ministries magazine without copyright acknowledgement. It is being cleaned as part of this large scale cleanup: Wikipedia:RSN#Current_large_scale_clean-up_efforts of copyright violations and reliable source misuse. Since it is a suspected copyright violation it should not be linked to from wikipedia per WP:C.

User:GDallimore restores the text several times [128][129][130], despite being told 1.considering the large scale copying of the magazine it is unlikely the text can reliably represent their views. 2. The text is a copyright violation and can not be linked to on wikipedia for legal reasons per WP:C, Diff [131]User_talk:GDallimore#Copyright_violations.

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

From above: Diff [132][133]

User_talk:GDallimore#Copyright_violations

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[134]

Discussion concerning GDallimore

Statement by GDallimore

This is a situation of a small number of users making large scale edits without consensus. There is no consensus that the links involved are infringing copyright. The reason there is no consensus is because there is no evidence that the links involved are infringing copyright. Someone posting something on their website and identifying it as being previously published in a magazine is, to the contary, evidence of good practice by the website.

Don't get me wrong, I have seen some edits being made as part of this large scale clean up of AiG links which were good and much needed. I have not reverted edits to Young Earth Creationism, for example, where I thought the edits were constructive even when I disagreed with much of the underlying reasoning. But making edits without consensus which do NOT improve the article is not acceptable practice. GDallimore (Talk) 15:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And can someone please explain to me how the discretionary sanctions on the topic of pseudoscience are remotely relevant to this disagreement about copyright? That's a HUUGE assumption of bad faith by the part of the nominator about my intentions in reverting his edits. GDallimore (Talk) 15:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Raeky

Welcome to ARE GDallimore, I hope you find it as hospitable as I have so far.. haha — raeky t 01:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Dominus Vobisdu

I'm not convinced that there is any copyright infringement going on here. Answers in Genesis and Ceation Ministries Internation split in 2006, and yes, there were legal wranglings over copyright issues. However, those were resolved in 2009. [[135]] I find it implausible that Answers in Genesis is using CMI material without the requisite permission in violation of the settlement. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something that I've been saying since day one... I said I think it would be extremely unlikely AiG is violating the copyrights of CMI since CMI has already sued them once, that would just be silly. Obviously there's a better option for the journal links, since CMI has them online as well. But apparently it's been decided beyond any questioning that it's a copyright violation. — raeky t 02:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Plausibility" is not a sufficient standard when CMI clearly has possession of the content, and maintains "reliable" archives with full attribution of the work. Wikipedia needs to be incredibly cautious about copyvio links. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, why not just replace the AiG cite with a cite to the CMI archives directly rather than just deleting the citation entirely? I agree that there is no need to use AiG, but GDallimore was acting in good faith when he said that there is no evidence of a copyright infringement. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because, if you check the diffs, I do precisely this when the CMI content can reasonably be construed to support the claim; replacing the copyvio link with a full citation and link to the publication's actual archive. The deleted content is primarily the sourcing or weighting of AiG opinions based on CMI content, which is illegitimate as it is misattribution. The mere misweighting of FRINGE claims generally gets marked with a Template:weight tag to indicate that editors need to consider the weighting. The only other claims deleted are clear misweightings, such as attempts to weight scientific claims on scientific articles to any FRINGE view point—or at the same level of seriousness theological claims on theological articles to a FRINGE view point with no capacity to conduct scholarly or professional theological review—where there is no indication that the scientific community has actually attended to the FRINGE view point at all (even if to dismiss out of hand in the scientific press). —Regarding good faith, I do believe fully that good faith existed, but editors are responsible for content that they add, or readd to the encyclopaedia. This is burdensome, but quite real. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Fifelfoo

As in the case above related to this matter, I believe an official warning under this sanction's discretionary sanctions is the most required. We cannot presume that AiG holds a licence for anything published by another organisation, we need to rely on documentation from either or both organisations that meets an adequate standard of reliability demonstrating that AiG holds such a licence; the presumption holds against due to the horrors attendant upon copyright violation. Further, publications by another body and duplicated in a horrifically inept manner on AiG's website do not represent the opinions of AiG. AiG publishes two rags, Answers and Answers research journal that specifically represent their opinion. In addition AiG publishes a variety of content on their website which isn't in breach of copyright and which appears to have originated with AiG themselves—this is appropriate content to attributing the Self-Published Sources "self" opinion. Finally, many if not all of these problems would have been solved if editors working in this FRINGE area had correctly cited material in the first place. Citing Technical Journal would have lead editors to Technical Journal's actual archive to locate the volume, date and issue information—full citations tend to expose many of the issues that raw links do not expose. For one, it would make editors consider if "Jeff Bloggs" or "Jane Doe" actually represents the opinion of AiG when writing, or if they merely represent their own opinion published by AiG (for instance, by checking AiG's speaker's list or staff list).

It is reasonable that inexperienced editors make these mistakes in a complex area like FRINGE editing, it is less reasonable when they revert content they appear to be unfamiliar with over policies they're unfamiliar with. Such conduct merits counselling and improved editing skills assistance. It certainly isn't at a disciplinary stage above a warning to indicate that this is a problematic form of editing in an area where problematic editing has systematically disrupted the encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, three regulars contributing on RS/N is a larger than average turnout, ~~as is two reports over three years having the same sweeping opinion that the entire source is unreliable (outside of EXPERT related SPS exemptions)~~; as is the body of work surrounding day in day out FRINGE RS issues (edited for wrong community shock that large scale poor sourcing was uncovered). RS/N doesn't have a mop because it is a content board, and has avoided dealing with these mass, blatant misuses of sources of poor reliability in the past because we lack a stick. This is a FRINGE area, where sourcing is at a premium, much like MEDRS covered areas. Negotiating line by line results with editors who claim to regularly edit in FRINGE topics, but lack a basic awareness of reliability policy is not viable—particularly when it comes to copyright violating links. Sure, we can just drive by tag the articles affected and wait for a sick community to mature; but, these kinds of content problems that go back to pillars, where editors choose to ignore the relevant content board's consensus, are an ulcerating problem with the fundamental encyclopaedic mission. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning GDallimore

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

Again? This is getting a bit ridiculous. Discretionary sanctions is not a license to drag everyone who disagree with you to AE - and given the relatively small number of people who commented in the RSN discussion and the relatively large number of articles affected, there's bound to be some good faith disagreements that can and should be worked out without getting AE involved. T. Canens (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd tend to agree, and would advise we remind everyone that using frivolous sanction processes as a bludgeon during legitimate content disputes is in itself a form of disruptive behavior. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM

VartanM (talk · contribs) indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions covered under WP:ARBAA2, broadly construed. Yerevanci (talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours and given formal notification. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning VartanM

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Grandmaster 06:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

02:46, June 26, 2012 Incivility

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

Placed on indef 1RR on February 7, 2009 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
Blocked for edit warring and incivility on February 20, 2009 by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

VartanM has been placed on indef 1RR and was previously blocked for edit warring and incivility. I find his recent comment at AFD discussion to be very incivil and insulting towards editors from Azerbaijan. In addition, I do not find this comment from another editor at the same board to be particularly civil either: [136] ARBAA2 made a specific provision for courtesy: [137]. I would like to ask for the admin attention to this issue. Grandmaster 06:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[138] [139]

Discussion concerning VartanM

Statement by VartanM

My point is that its summer outside, and you guys are wasting your lives on a stupid article. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. Hugs and Kisses. VartanM (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning VartanM

Result concerning VartanM

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

I've blocked VartanM for 5 days for both the comment at the AfD and the unhelpful comment above; I considered doubling the previous block, but decided that I'd take 24 hours off due to the time in between. I also think an indefinite topic ban in the AA area would be in order, as VartanM seems incapable of neutrally, dispassionately editing there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Blade. T. Canens (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't necessarily disagree, I have to say I found the contributions by Yerevanci (talk · contribs) in that discussion a good deal more problematic. Maybe we need to have a look at him too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If no one objects in the next 12 hours, I'm going to block Yerevanci for 24 hours for this comment. I think a 90 day break from the AA area would also be good for Yerevanci as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the block and indef topic ban for VartanM, but only with the block for Yerevanci. The latter has never been notified under WP:ARBAA2, so I think we can't issue an AA ban of Yerevanci (talk · contribs) at this time. We can issue the notification, though. Yerevanci has made a serious effort to create content, as you can see from his user page, though he also has plenty of national zeal. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fair enough to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre

This is a notification.

An administrator special enforcement action against Sceptre (talk · contribs) has been challenged by an editor at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Block review: Sceptre and AndyTheGrump. Uncle G (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay

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

Request concerning GoodDay

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: — Rich wales 21:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay#GoodDay topic-banned from diacritics

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

27 June 2012 This edit (by HandsomeFella) removed diacritics from several players' names.
27 June 2012 Although the above edit was performed by HandsomeFella (talk · contribs), this exchange on GoodDay's talk page strongly suggests that the editing was done in collaboration with GoodDay, in order to sidestep the topic ban.

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

27 June 2012 Notified GoodDay.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Although HandsomeFella's edit changed several wikilinked names of individuals to non-diacritic versions (hence my complaint), I also note that HandsomeFella spoke disapprovingly of GoodDay in the recent ArbCom case (see here). There seems to be a contradiction here, and I don't claim to have a good explanation for it. I still believe that the exchange between HandsomeFella and GoodDay (on GoodDay's talk page), in conjunction with HandsomeFella's edit, raises reasonable questions as to what might have been going on, and at the very least, it is not out of order to ask for an explanation. — Rich wales 22:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HandsomeFella's editing of the names in question could also have been influenced by WP:HOCKEY, which in its current form says that North American hockey pages should generally not use diacritics in player names. This statement, as best I can tell, was added in June 2007 by GoodDay — apparently after some discussion which I was not able to locate just now. I suppose WP:HOCKEY's diacritics guidelines might (or might not) need to be revisited in light of the ArbCom ruling. — Rich wales 23:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is in progress on GoodDay's talk page regarding the interpretation of his topic ban. — Rich wales 01:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

27 June 2012 Notified GoodDay (see above).
27 June 2012 Notified HandsomeFella.

Discussion concerning GoodDay

Statement by GoodDay

Comments by others about the request concerning GoodDay

This is the very definition of frivolity. ✝D B D 22:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a violation of his arbitration mandated topic ban. I think HandsomeFella made the edits in good faith and of his own accord (e.g.: without formal cooperation), but GoodDay started that topic knowing that it violated his topic ban, and likely in the hopes that someone would do his work for him by proxy. He's poking around the edges and seeing how far he can push things. Not frivolous at all, imo. Reso lute 23:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning GoodDay

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]

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