From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Sprutt (talk · contribs) topic banned indefinitely. NW (Talk) 18:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
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 Sprutt[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Grandmaster 08:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Sprutt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. November 30, 2012 [1]
  2. December 1, 2012
  3. December 13, 2012
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on June 9, 2012 by Grandmaster (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on November 30, 2012 by Grandmaster (talk · contribs)
  3. Warned on December 1, 2012 by Grandmaster (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Sprutt repeatedly violated WP:AGF and WP:NPA during this discussion at WP:RSN despite repeated warnings to refrain from personal attacks. He is well aware of AA2 discretionary sanctions, but this does not stop him from commenting on contributor instead of the content. For his latest personal comment Sprutt received a warning from another user: [2], but I'm not sure that would put an end to violations of WP:NPA by Sprutt, as previous warnings had no effect. Grandmaster 08:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that this is not a place to discuss content disputes, but I want to demonstrate that I did not provide false info about the article of Ronald Suny. This is what Suny wrote in his article:

An angry crowd surrounded me as I was leaving the hall, shouting that I was davejan (a "traitor"in Armenian). My first response was to shout back that I was a scholar and an Armenian, only to be told that I was no scholar and no Armenian (hai ches). Security guards took me away to avoid further trouble. Personal attacks continued in the press, and a year later a book appeared in Erevan bitterly denouncing Western scholarship on Armenia, particularly my own work.

I think it is pretty clear from the above that Suny was almost physically attacked in Yerevan, otherwise there would have been no need for the security guards to take him away "to avoid further trouble". One can imagine what would have happened to him if there were no security guards there. In any case, this does not excuse personal attacks by Sprutt, and he failed to demonstrate a single instance of me providing "false quotes". Once again, I would like to see an evidence to support his claim that I cited false quotes, otherwise I expect an apology for the false accusations, personal attacks and bad faith assumptions. Grandmaster 18:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that there was intention in Yerevan to attack Suny physically. "Further trouble" is no evidence for intended physical abuse. You fabricated this in order to add a dose of drama to your very tendentiousness remarks, hence my comments. Sprutt (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The text from the article by Suny is provided above for everyone to see. I think the admins will give their assessment whether there was fabrication in my statement or not. But your personal attacks and insults were not limited just to that. You accused me of trying to "push Azerbaijani nationalist propaganda" [3], "acting in bad faith": [4], "demagoguery and needless hoopla": [5], engaging in "fabrications in his attempt to fight his nationalist war against Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia" [6]. I believe you have a lot of explanations to make. Grandmaster 04:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Grandmaster confuses two things: personal attacks and qualification of professional conduct. Personal attacks, more properly called insults, are directed against personal characteristics (e.g. Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual, or other epithets or threats Bold text(such as against people with disabilities, as per Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F). Qualification of the quality of professional demeanor are no personal attacks or insults. I never called you an idiot, or a demagogue or a fabricator. I expressed opinions about the low quality of your remarks. These are no personal attacks, and not covered under WP:NPA. Sprutt (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Check carefully your link to WP:NPA. It says inter alia that a personal attack are "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". It also says that the examples cited there are not exhaustive, and "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". I don't see how your comments cited above could be in line with Wikipedia civility rules. Grandmaster 19:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Sprutt[edit]

Statement by Sprutt[edit]

This is not the first time when Grandmaster files a frivolous report when he disagrees with his fellow discussants, and runs out of arguments. This is a bogus request, and no violations took place. There are no personal attacks in my comments. Grandmaster will do everyone a favor if he familiarizes himself what personal attack is. This information is in the subsection of the WP:NPA discussion, in the paragraph titled What is considered to be a personal attack [8]. Grandmaster provoked a discussion along the lines "my-country's-info-is-better-than-your-country's-info" which received criticism of involved third party participants in the discussion [9]. Grandmaster's habit of filing false alarm request and using AA2 sanctions as a tool of attacking his opponents shall be curbed by the community.

Grandmaster provided false information that Ronald Suny was "almost physically attacked" [10] in Yerevan. His article "Constructing Primordialism: Old Histories for New Nations" discusses a rather tense debates on contentious subject but contains no such information.

My very best wishes asked me to provide evidence supporting claims in the discussion about Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia [11]:

  • (a) Accusation that Grandmaster "engaged in fabrications." There is no evidence that there was intention in Yerevan to attack R. Suny physically. "Further trouble" that is in the text of the paper referred to by Grandmaster provides no evidence for any intended physical abuse. Grandmaster fabricated (i.e. manipulated the meaning of the passage) this in order to add a extra dose of drama to his very tendentious remarks, hence my comment. The other instance of the use of the word fabrication is my agreement with User:MarshallBagramyan who suggested that "The controversy surrounding the examples cited by Grandmaster are fabricated by himself entirely and it's unfortunate that his argument is receiving more attention than is truly warranted" here [12].
  • (b) Accusation that Grandmaster "uses fake quotes." Under a closer inspection it turned out that Grandmaster did not cite Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia directly [13] - as I originally thought - but pointed to Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia references in WP. This is a good faith technical mistake on my part. My apologies to Grandmaster.
  • (c) Accusation that Grandmaster was "the head of a coordinated tag team." This comes from evidence provided in this discussion [14], and more directly here [15] and here [16], where Grandmaster is discussed as the head of the 26 Baku Commissars tag team. Here Grandmaster the ArbCom directly accuses Grandmaster of being the coordinator of the above-mentioned distribution list [17]. Sprutt (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Also take a note on Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Recurring_attacks. As I mentioned my comments are not personal attacks, but even if someone is misinterpreting them in that light, please take a note of remedies suggested in this subsection. The passage says clearly: In most circumstances, problems with personal attacks can be resolved if editors work together and focus on content, and immediate administrator action is not required. A ban from an entire area of discussion simply for calling someone's disruptive misinterpretations as "fabrication" is a draconian measure totally unprecedented in WP. Sprutt (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Grandmaster quotations miss out context, and thus mis-characterize others' remarks

Grandmaster quotations removes the context, and thus mis-characterize remarks of other discussants. He carefully selects single words or phrases and quotes them without the discussion in which they were used. In my comments I gave my reasons why his behavior presents fabrication or demagoguery. Grandmaster also confuses two things: personal attacks and critical qualification of professional conduct. Personal attacks, more properly called insults, are directed against personal characteristics (e.g. Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities, as per Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F). Or they are threats. Assessment of the quality of professional demeanor and quality or possible origin of Grandmaster's biases are no personal attacks or insults. I never insulted or belittled my opponents, including Grandmaster, in order to attack his/their claims or invalidate their arguments. I never directly called Grandmaster an idiot, or a demagogue or a fabricator. I never threatened Grandmaster. I expressed opinions about the low quality of his remarks and his tactics to manipulate the discussion. These are no personal attacks, and not covered under WP:NPA. Sprutt (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Zimmarod: a witch-hunt by WP:AGF violators?[edit]

I don't see any serious misconduct by Sprutt at all. There are people insisting on something "serious" but the evidence is not there, especially meriting banning from AA area. For what? Sprutt pointed to grossly incorrect interpretation by Grandmaster on which his line of attack in favor of banning Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia was based. This is a violation by Grandmaster to begin with. Zimmarod (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that Grandmaster is in gross violation of WP:AGF himself as he accuses me of a connection with someone else. Should I imply in return that he and My best wishes are a coordinated team? Is this a witch-hunt? Zimmarod (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Moved from incorrect section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC) This is ludicrous, and grossly unfair . If you compare who was topic banned from AA you would come up with those engaged in persistent edit warring, or racial attacks. Nothing remotely similar is implied for Sprutt. Sprutt is a year-old account and I see nothing objectionable in his demeanor for that quite long period of time. User:Grandmaster was indeed head of a tag group and a distribution list in Russian WP, coming under sanctions for coordinated editing and harassment in RuWiki.

An administrator may ask Sprutt to be more moderate and argumentative in the various forums but topic ban is hell of a bias for this case. My question of "why" would come with very strong and multiple question marks. Zimmarod (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by 517design[edit]

Grandmaster should be sanctioned for misusing AE requests for attempts to remove people out of his way whom he cannot cooperate with. I see nothing especially reproachable in Sprutt's conduct. I value his apology to Grandmaster. Sprutt appears to be a well-behaved account, and Grandmaster's insinuations are not convincing. I urge sysops to close this AE request cold turkey. 517design (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Sprutt[edit]

@Sprutt. Unfortunately, I must agree with Grandmaster: this is a serious personal attack by you, unless you can indeed provide any evidence (diffs please) of your claims (and claims by Marshal Bagramyan you tell?) made here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is an inappropriate exaggeration. See for yourself what "Serious personal attack" is. Did I use racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual, or other epithets, as per [18]? NO. Did I use someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, as per [19]? Did I link to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor, as per [20]? NO. Did I compare editors to Nazis, dictators, etc, as per [21]? NO. Did I use threats, including, threats of legal action, violence etc, as per [22]? NO! Anyway, see what Grandmaster did wrong. Sprutt (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
You tell: "User:Grandmaster is engaged in fabrications ... He cites fake quotes... Grandmaster has been routinely accused - with evidence - of being the head of a coordinated tag team which attacks good edits and wages ridiculous nationalist wars in Wikipedia.". Hence, please provide diffs proving that Grandmaster was (a) "engaged in fabrications", (b) "cites fake quotes", and (c) "the head of a coordinated tag team". Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I have an impression that User:Meowy or other alternative accounts have something to do with this... My very best wishes (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
To me also the appearance of Zimmarod (talk · contribs) at this page after more than 2 months of absence looks quite strange, especially considering that he and Sprutt created user accounts here almost simultaneously, Sprutt on 11 November 2011, and Zimmarod on 16 November 2011. Grandmaster 20:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Aha! My account and Sprutt's account were routinely checked multiple times on the matter sock-puppetry at the request of Grandmaster if I remember correctly. What I see here is a witch-hunt by a couple of individuals who are violators of WP:AGF, who are trying to get someone else prosecuted for violation of WP:AGF. Zimmarod (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I said nothing of sockpuppetry. Only that your appearance here looks a bit unusual. May I ask how you became aware of this request? Grandmaster 20:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I am an increasingly busy and don't find enough time to edit but I am monitoring discussions in the AA area, especially those on Nagorno-Karabakh, and I noticed that your behavior is getting increasingly disturbing. Zimmarod (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
All right then. But it looks like from your very short edit history you appear ones every few months, exclusively to take part in AE discussion, AfD or another dispute in AA area... My very best wishes (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Sprutt, for providing additional links and diffs [23]. Most of them are dated back to 2009 and belong to ruwiki. There is only one recent diff, but that one implicates MarshallBagramyan rather than anyone else. My very best wishes (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand. I agree with MarshallBagramyan's assessment that Grandmaster is fabricating things. In other words it is not only my opinion. And indeed one additional example of this tactics is his misinterpretation (manipulation/fabrication) of the article by Prof. Suny. I also issued an apology for my technical mistake regarding what I thought were quotations fro ASE. You over-dramatize the situation. Being part of a tag team is a violation too serious to have expiry date. Sprutt (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Since Sprutt mentioned MarshallBagramyan and provided a diff to his comment, it would be really helpful if MarshallBagramyan explained how exactly I "fabricated controversies". In my opinion, this comment was quite inappropriate and escalated the tensions at that board. Grandmaster 05:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Fabricate in this context means exaggerate for the purpose of misleading the discussion. Sprutt (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Sprutt[edit]

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

Comment by Zimmarod moved to proper section. Please reply in your own section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree, though I would not be opposed to sanctioning even beyond that. There is reasonable and professional conduct on that page from many editors; Sprutt is not one of them. To me, it is quite evident that Sprutt is not approaching this topic area with his or her biases sufficiently left at the door. NW (Talk) 18:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Absent any objections, I propose that a topic ban be enacted in 24 hours. The discussion above has failed to convince me that it is not needed (quite the opposite actually). NW (Talk) 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed; after thinking about this, an indef topic ban still seems the best option. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Enacting topic ban. NW (Talk) 18:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Brews ohare[edit]

Brews ohare will be issued a final warning, logged to WP:ARBSL, that the topic ban covers all material reasonably and closely related to physics, regardless of what page such material is on. Brews ohare is further urged to request clarification from an uninvolved administrator (preferably one familiar with the case) or here at AE prior to beginning editing any material where its relation to the topic ban may be in question. Such clarification requests made in good faith will not be considered a violation of the ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
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 Brews ohare[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 04:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBSL#Motions, #7
Accordingly, the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 12 December 2012 Removing physics content from article
  2. 12 December 2012 Describing perfectly good physics as gobbledygook.

The ban was 'from all pages' I think to precisely cover this, the physics content of non-physics articles, so it is clearly covered. Not only is this against his ban but his tendentious arguing and editing despite his fundamental misunderstanding of it illustrates why he was banned in the first place.

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

I don't know if a warning is required, but I on two recent occasions reminded him of the ban after editing that was close to the line:

  1. Warned on 16 November 2012 by JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on 21 November 2012 by JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 04:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Brews ohare[edit]

Statement by Brews ohare[edit]

As to the diffs brought as evidence in this case:

These diffs affect content in the article Free will, and are not about physics, but about clarity in presenting the topic of free will without confusing digressions. The digressions are Gobbledygook because they are not pertinent to the topic of Free will. Blackburne has elected to skew his descriptions of these edits to appear to be what they are not. Brews ohare (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

If this proceeding should result in a site ban for week, as seems to be the proposal of some, it is unclear what lesson should be drawn. From past history and the present action, it is clear that Blackburne will search for every opportunity to do this again, on the slimmest of pretexts, and regardless of whether WP is served. Brews ohare (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: The quote you have supplied "Physical models offered at present are both deterministic and indeterministic, and are subject to interpretations of quantum mechanics - which themselves are being constrained by ongoing experimentation." was not a statement of mine, but was a quotation from the article Free will supplied here by Richardbrucebaxter.
I made no comment as to its accuracy, and began my arguments for its removal with the remark "Now, whether or not "physical models" are both deterministic and indeteriministic" is completely irrelevant here..." I went on to say " It contributes nothing to the presentation.."
My remarks here are directed simply at the relevance of this paragraph to the article Free will and make no statement about the merits or demerits of Richardbrucebaxter's claims about physics. It is a stretch to call such an argument of irrelevancy of a paragraph a "physics-related discussion".
Such detail may be tedious for you to examine, but it's needed for a true assessment.
In addition, I'd like you to bear in mind that this was part of an ordinary discussion of Free will, and there is no need here for intervention by Administrators to "set things on the right track", so to speak. Blackburne's intrusion here is simply as a busybody with no engagement in Free will or this discussion.
Seraphimblade, with a careful reading of this Gobbledygook? exchange, would you reconsider? Brews ohare (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Seraphimblade: You say: "A reference to quantum mechanics is a clear and direct reference to a theory that is a major part of modern physics, and that means that editing or removing that reference is off limits to you, period."
Got it. I don't have to actually discuss physics to be off limits; off limits extends to any action involving names of physical theories or their vocabulary, whatever the context or purpose of those actions.
This restriction is very severe , especially with Blackburne looking over my shoulder. It appears I will have to avoid philosophy, engineering, mathematics, most science, and a good deal of history. Is all this really necessary or good for WP, or is this more akin to a Les Misérables type of strict enforcement in the Inspector Javert vein?. Brews ohare (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
@Mathsci: Yes, I mentioned string theory as an example of a physical theory. I did not discuss it. My total, complete, and exhaustive reference to this topic was: "For example, determinism phrased to accord with Newton's laws is not viable, but how about one phrased to fit string theory or multiverses?" You may be unaware that Determinism is a philosophical topic, not physics. According to your present opinion, if I mentioned Obama, that would be "politics-related". As already pointed out by others, this interpretation of a "physics-related" edit is extreme. I question the value to WP of such an approach.
BTW, and FYI, because you bring up my credentials, I have a PhD in physics from McGill University and worked as a physicist member of technical staff at Bell Laboratories for 23 years, publishing articles on phase transitions, electronic band structure and electron devices such as the MOSFET in technical journals such as Physical Review, Transactions on Electron Devices and Solid State Electronics. It speaks highly of WP that Blackburne has managed to have me excluded from contributing in these areas using exactly the tactics presented here. Brews ohare (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
@EdJohnson: Ed, you are off point here. No-one doubts that I removed material related to physics from the philosophical discussion of Free will. Your long description of just why this physics is physics is beside the point. I seem to recall you had a previous issue of this kind with me when you failed to distinguish geometry from physics and smacked me for that one. Now its philosophy and physics. It is for these reasons that sanctions should not require judgment about content.
Deletion of a digression on physics from Free will is about its relevance to free will, not about physics. Brews ohare (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Ed, you say: " If Brews would agree to avoid this in the future, this might be closed with no action. My assumption is that he will not negotiate, but I would be glad to be proven wrong."
I am not at all intransigent about this. If you can formulate what "this" is, I will avoid it. Brews ohare (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Physics includes anything with SI base units, so anything with a unit would fall in scope of a strict definition. So any edit with time (seconds), a length, a mass or weight, reference to light, color, sound, electricity or electro magnetic radiation, waves, pendulums, springs, levels, internal combustion, heat, thermodynamics, motion, rotation ... would be right out! Just because "quantum" is more esoteric than "second" -- which is, of course "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" doesn't make it any less physics. NE Ent 22:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Brews ohare[edit]

As the entire scope of Wikipedia falls between Big Bang and Heat Death of the Universe, you can broadly construe a physics topic ban to include into a site ban if you're so inclined. The topic ban is about what pages they can edit, not what content -- Free will is not "about physics and physics-related mathematics," NE Ent 16:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This is all philosophy, not physics, plain and simple. Based on such argument, one could sanction Brews for mentioning words like "force" or "velocity" somewhere. I suggest that John should stop following and reporting Brews. There are other editors around to notice problems if any. My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
All natural sciences, technology and philosophy (as we can see) are somehow related to physics. My very best wishes (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It's very borderline because the recent comments on the talk page (not just the diffs above) seem to be about the philosophy of quantum mechanics. Mathsci (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • At the very minimum, give him a explicit warning that he is stepping too close to the line. Otherwise he will think that he was right, and he will keep pursuing the same line of editing until he finds himself blocked. And he will think that he was unfairly blocked, since no one had told him explicitly that he was Doing It Wrong. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The issue here is what "broadly construed" means.
It appears that any sentence in any article (including ones which are not specifically about physics or physical phenomena)which has any terms related to physics is being interpreted to be included - which may be stretching the concept of topic bans to their uttermost limits.
Posit a person quoting George Gnarph as saying "Like Galileo, I say Gnarphism is true and the sun still moves." If Georgen Gnarph's quote is not relevant to an article, the fact the qyite refers to physics "broadly construed" ought not make the physic topic ban applicable.
In short - the term "broadly construed" should mean "reasonably and substantially construed to be directly related to the subject of the topic ban", and not mean "uses any terms at all which a rubber-bander could stretch to include in the topic ban." Collect (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
No. On the talk page, Brews ohare explicitly mentions quantum mechanics, string theory and the standard model. These are specialist parts of theoretical physics, not everyday terms. Mathsci (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, a physicist can not avoid discussing actual physical concepts, even when he is trying to write something about natural sciences, technology and philosophy. For someone like Brews this is basically a site ban. My personal suggestion would be to allow Brews editing Physics for a while and see how it goes, but this can not be decided here...My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
On his user page Brews ohare does not describe himself as a physicist. Mathsci (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
No, he describes himself as an electrical engineer. It's not a particularly large leap from Kirchhoff's circuit laws to Maxwell's equations to modern quantum electrodynamics. As usual, xkcd is on point here. NW (Talk) 19:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, he descibes himself as an electrical engineer. There is a huge gulf between that subject and what is required to master rudimentary string theory, even prior to more recent developments in M-theory. Mathsci (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Boodlepounce is puzzled. The sanctions states the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed It seems clear to Boodlepounce that this is a ban from certain pages; that the ban extends to all spaces not just article space; that the pages are defined by being about physics and physics-related mathematics; and that the construction of the the defninition of physics and physics-related mathematics is to be broad. The complaint is about edits to Free will and Talk:Free will. Boodlepounce cannot see that this page is "about physics and physics-related mathematics" however broad the construction. Other complaints levied against the accused here are unrelated to this sanction. If the Committee had intended a topic-ban on content about physics, they could and would have said so -- Boodlepounce assumes that the Committee meant what it said and said what it meant. If the Committee had intended to impose restrictions on editing or conduct related to physics, again it would have said so. It is clear to Boodlepounce at least that there is no vioplation of the Committee's topic ban here. Complaints about other aspects of these edits are misplaced and should be taken up elsewhere. Boodlepounce (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge[edit]

It seems pretty obvious that Brews ohare violated their topic ban. A topic ban means that the editor cannot make any edits regarding that topic regardless of article. As soon as they begin discussing the topic, they have violated their ban. The two diffs provided in this RfE are extremely damning. Who could possibly argue that the physical universe and quantum mechanics aren't part of physics? I don't see any problem implementing the 1 week block or EdJohnston's suggestion that Brews ohare agree to avoid this in the future without action. If Brews ohare believes that the topic ban is without merit or is no longer necessary, they are free to request that the topic ban be lifted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the only legitimate exceptions to topic bans are obvious vandalism and dispute resolutions involving the ban itself. No such justifications have been offered and Wikipedia:Banning policy is very clear. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Count Iblis[edit]

Since this has nothing whatsoever to do with the original speed of light case, it is a violation of an extention of an extention of an extention of an extention of extention of an extention of an extention of an extention of an extention of an extention of an extention of extention of an extention of an extention of an extention of sanctions that were designed to deal with too much talk on the speed of light talk page, I think the best thing is to start a new ArbCom case. 23:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by I-have-commented-on-this-topic-before Enric Naval[edit]

The clarification has been archived. The arbitrators agree that the edit was a violation of the topic ban, that the topic ban applies to any physics-related edit in any page, and that they don't need to make a motion.

Personally, I find that the original topic ban was a bit confusing for people with an engineering mindset. The wording "all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed." will be parsed by any methodical person as "all pages" not as "all edits". And engineers are trained to be methodical. I suppose that arbcom needs to writeup a non-confusing wording and use it in later cases. So, maybe give him a formal warning that the topic ban is meant to be applied to all edits in any page in any namespace, no just to those edits made in certain pages?

Please, don't just close the AE thread and consider him warned. Please issue a formal warning in his talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Brews ohare[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Given the usual use of the words "broadly construed", I can't see that there's a whole lot of wiggle room here, and it seems there is indeed a violation, which would allow for a block of no longer than one week. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Also agree with TC that the maximum block is warranted. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
      • All right, I had taken the "pages of any nature about physics or physics-related mathematics" to mean any page with any connection to physics, even if not the primary topic. Apparently we don't have agreement on that understanding here, though. If further discussion doesn't produce a consensus, perhaps a request for clarification could be in order. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
        • NW, Seraphimblade, as there is a clear disagreement here with people on both sides clearly acting in good faith, I very much support the idea of a request for clarification. This situation, where people aren't sure how to interpret an ArbCom ruling, is exactly why we have a place to make such requests. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks like a violation to me; given the history here, minded to go with the maximum one week block. T. Canens (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I remain of the view that this is an unambiguous violation. The third example in WP:TBAN is directly on point: just as a "section entitled 'Climate' in the article New York" would be covered by a topic ban from weather, even though the article itself is not about weather. This remains so even if the edit in question removed the whole section on the argument that it's irrelevant to the subject at hand. If someone topic banned from climate change were to edit Hurricane Sandy and remove the "Relation to global warming" subsection because it is "about its relevance to the [hurricane], not about [climate change]", I doubt that any of us would hesitate to block. T. Canens (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not immediately clear to me that this really is a violation of the topic ban: the edits relate to the plausible applicability of some vague physics-related concepts to philosophical concepts rather than discuss the physics themselves – and the posts were clearly intended to affect the philosophical discussion and not the physics.

    I'd agree it skirts uncomfortably close to the restriction, but I'd argue that a week-long block is unwarranted. — Coren (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree with Coren; this seems to be stretching the definition of "broadly construed" a bit too far. NW (Talk) 18:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I am still unconvinced by arguments that this falls within the (intent of the) topic ban. It appears to be 4-2 against my position though. What have we historically done in times like this? NW (Talk) 19:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think that all of Brews' edit cited here to free will was physics-related, but I have a hard time seeing how "Physical models offered at present are both deterministic and indeterministic, and are subject to interpretations of quantum mechanics - which themselves are being constrained by ongoing experimentation." could be interpreted as anything but directly and clearly relating to physics. Brews was clearly aware this was part of the edit, as evidenced by the later "gobbledygook" discussion on it. Other parts of that edit, such as those about intuition, etc., would not have violated the topic ban, but that, in my opinion, very clearly does. Accordingly, I have to agree with those finding this to be a sanctionable violation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Brews, no, that doesn't convince me at all. The topic ban means that you may not edit any page or part of a page related to physics, at all. That's what a topic ban means. I do understand that there could be a significant grey area there, but I just can't find any grey here. A reference to quantum mechanics is a clear and direct reference to a theory that is a major part of modern physics, and that means that editing or removing that reference is off limits to you, period. Seraphimbladepublic (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • NW, I'm not sure, this is indeed an unusual situation. Maybe Heimstern's suggestion of a request for clarification would be a way to move forward? Seraphimbladepublic (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I've correspondingly filed the request for clarification. This is an unusual case, and I think some additional input from ArbCom would be very helpful here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
    • At this point, I think the result of the clarification request clearly indicates that these types of edits were intended to be prohibited by the topic ban. I suggest that now that this has been made clear, we should close this thread with a logged final warning to Brews that the topic ban applies to physics-related material in all cases. This applies to only material reasonably and closely related to physics, and I'll be the first to warn that if we see an enforcement request here because Brews expressed units in meters or seconds, or because he edited an article on a car engine and car engines are ultimately applied physics, the filer is likely to be the one sanctioned for filing a frivolous request and wasting everyone's time. However, if the material is related to physics, its theories, etc., it is off limits, even if that isn't the main subject of the article. I also strongly urge Brews to ask for an opinion on applicability of the ban before editing a questionable area, either here or from one of the admins familiar with the case. Appropriate clarification requests are not a violation of the topic ban. As to the topic ban itself, it's ultimately up to ArbCom whether relaxing or lifting it is called for, as the ban was not imposed by AE but by ArbCom directly. I honestly don't see a block doing any good at this point, but now that the scope of the restriction is clear, it will be very likely next time. I hope never to see that thread appear here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Agree that this is the most appropriate resolution. NW (Talk) 19:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Agreed as well. (As a side note, the textual question is hardly as clear-cut as some commenters above suggest. The phrase "topic ban" is a term of art, defined by policy at WP:TBAN, which says that it includes edits to topic-related parts of otherwise unrelated pages unless "clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise". Simply saying "topic-banned from pages" does not really constitute a clear and unambiguous declaration that the topic ban is to be considerably narrowed in this manner.) T. Canens (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The word 'physics' occurs in material removed by Brews ohare on 12 December from the Free will article. His edit removes a citation of a physics paper called "An experimental test of non-local realism" published in Nature in 2007 by Simon Gröblacher et al. So I do find this to be a technical violation of his physics restriction. To convince you his edit is really about physics, take a look at Bell test experiments#Gröblacher et al. (2007) test of Leggett-type non-local realist theories. It explains the significance of Gröblacher's work in the context of quantum mechanics. On December 13 another editor restored mention of the Gröblacher paper and it is currently back in the article. Brews has been in front of Arbcom a number of times. So in spite of the temptation to send this report away as too minor to bother with, I think it's better if we treat it as a bright line issue, and issue a block of some duration. If Brews would agree to avoid this in the future, this might be closed with no action. My assumption is that he will not negotiate, but I would be glad to be proven wrong. If anyone thinks it is time to start relaxing Brews' ban, they should take it up with Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


Medvegja (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions pertaining to Albania, broadly construed, and may appeal after 6 months. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
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 Medvegja[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Athenean (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Medvegja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [25] Tampering with population numbers without providing sources or even an explanation
  2. [26] Claiming there are sources for something without providing them
  3. [27] Tendentious editing
  4. [28] Use of deceitful edit summaries (it's not an undo, he just makes it appear so in the hope that no one will check it)
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on [29] by Athenean (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on [30] by Bbb23 (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Medvegja is a disruptive Balkan-nationalist single purpose account that is particularly obsessed with population figures. At Albanians, he has been inflating the numbers and edit-warring over that for months [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]. He just changes the numbers on a whim, almost never providing a source, or explanation, or even an edit summary, marking every edit as "minor". Virtually all his edits at Albanians is along these lines. This kind of disruption is persistent, long term and shows no sign of abating, if anything it is getting worse. He was recently blocked [38] and warned of ARBMAC sanctions following a particularly nasty bout of edit-warring [39] (scroll to the bottom). Other articles suffer from similar disruption [40] [41] [42]. Sources are tampered with, removed, without an explanation provided. At Markos Botsaris, he has been making tendentious unexplained edits for months, again without explanation or sign of stopping [43] [44]. Particularly odious are his attempts to deceive in his edit summaries, e.g. here [45]. The edit is not an undo. He just tries to make it seem as such in the hope of evading scrutiny. Attempts at talkpage discussion are mathematically zero [46], as is content building or any other positive contribs for that matter. Attempts to engage this user are usually rebuffed in a hostile manner [47] [48]. It is my distinct impression that this user is not suited to edit ARBMAC topics, and the topic area is much better off without him.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 



It appears he is now socking through an IP [50], most likely from some kind of net cafe. Note the reinstatement of Medvegja's previous edit at Laskarina Bouboulina, the edits to Medveđa and the retaliatory unexplained revert of my edit at Suleiman the Magnificient.

Discussion concerning Medvegja[edit]

Statement by Medvegja[edit]

I did add sources to my edits recently about Albanians according to official census in Albania,Croatia,Greece etc.I know how many Albanians live in south Serbia (60,000) because i come from there and in 2002 census there were 61,647 . Arbëreshë people in Italy are Albanians and they must be included,also Arvanites are Albanian.Laskarina Bouboulina,Markos Botsaris and many other heroes of Greek War of Independece are Arvanites-Albanians.We should stop hiding the truth and accept these facts.I will be more careful in my edits,but i hope that my Greek friends will stop also giving poor sources about Greeks in Albania and rejecting the official results. I would be very glad if they can prove that Arvanites are not of Albanian origin. User talk:Medvegja 21:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Medvegja[edit]

Pretending that Arvanites are not Albanians is like pretending Kosovan Albanians are not Albanians,or that Austrians don`t speak German and have nothing to do with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

  • Apart from his disruptive population numbers editing, this user's main feature is his complete lack of communication/response. Prior to his response above, the only response I've seen him ever make is this nice piece. DeCausa (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Btw, IP 91.187's contribs includes editing the article on what Medvegja says on his user page is his home town (population: 2,841). DeCausa (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Medvegja[edit]

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by User:Mor2[edit]

Appeal granted. While the block has already expired at this time, Mor2's block log and the case page will be annotated to reflect that the block was found unwarranted by consensus of uninvolved administrators. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user 
Mor2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction being appealed 
blocked for WP:1RR at Operation Pillar of Defense
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.
N/A (blocked) but Bbb23 is aware of appeal

Statement by User:Mor2[edit]

  • Reason: I haven't violated the spirit or letter of the policy. I haven't warred with anyone or made more than one revert. I made a simple improvement, based on the section main article lead, providing an extensive edit summary.
  • Details: all the details, difs and explanations were posted here: User_talk:Mor2#December_2012 (I posted them there by mistake, as I am unfamiliar with unblock feature)
  • Request: to lift and strike the block.

Statement by User:Bbb23[edit]

I believe that Mor2 agrees that this change to the article was a revert. The change at issue is this one and whether it constitutes a revert under WP:1RR. On its face, it is a revert, i.e., "an[] edit ... that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." (WP:3RR) As I understand it, Mor2's claim is they were just improving on language they originally introduced 499 revisions earlier, this one on November 17 and this one on November 20.

As I explained to Mor2 on their talk page, even assuming I should take into account those edits from over a month ago, they don't look like material introduced by Mor2 but material that was altered by Mor2. So, perhaps the latest edit (the one at issue) was an "improvement" in Mor2's eyes, but it looked to me like another alteration or "undoing", if you will.

I also took into account Mor2's experience and previous block, meaning they were not newbies unfamiliar with arbitration enforcement on this article. Indeed, like many of the frequent editors of that article, they are often more knowledgeable than an admin like me who is merely enforcing the sanctions.

All that said, if Mor2 had acknowledged that in hindsight what they did was wrong, that they are well-aware of 1RR but sincerely didn't think they were violating it, I might have considered unblocking them. Instead, I don't see any self-awareness in this appeal. That concerns me because it makes it more likely that similar violations may occur in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike(involved editor 1)[edit]

As I remember in the past AE regular editing that changed a text that was already in the article long time ago was not considered a revert and user were discouraged to bring such kind of reverts to consideration.But my personal opinion and the language of WP:3RR is quite clear on this that any change in the article is considered a revert and the time variable shouldn't really matter.The problem that is left for admin discretion, in my view they shouldn't be any grey areas on this matter.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

@T.Canens:Shouldn't the language of 3RR amended per your comments.Just it will be clear so no grey areas will be left?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by User:Mor2[edit]

Result of the appeal by User:Mor2[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The key question in this appeal is whether this edit is a revert.

    As far as I can determine, the two sentences in the form before Mor2's recent edit were the results for edits by several editors on November 20: the first sentence was added in this edit by Mor2; the source for that sentence added in this edit also by Mor2. The second sentence was also added by Mor2 here, then tweaked by Jalapenos do exist here and finally modified by Nishidani here. I have done a spot check of roughly three dozen revisions between the time of Nishidani's edit and Mor2's new edit at question; all of the revisions I checked have the same text, suggesting that the two sentences at issue are unlikely to have been the subject of an edit war. Under these circumstances, it is arguable that the edit at issue, even if it were a revert, would be mostly a self-revert, but I do not think that is a good ground upon which to dispose of the appeal, because there are elements contributed by other editors, and more importantly because it would make sanctions turn on pure happenstance.

    Rather, I think that the appeal should be allowed on the ground that the edit at issue is not a revert at all. To be sure, it fits the literal description of "revert" found at WP:3RR (any edit...that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material), but every single tweak to an article can be considered a revert by that definition, and it is arguable that even insertion of material that could have been but was not inserted before would "reverse" the implicit "action" not to include the material; that would be simply absurd. As I said before, the xRR rules are intended to constrain actual edit warring, not traps for the unwary or invitations to do hypertechnical parsing of edits in search of reverts. I'll reiterate my longstanding view that for an edit to constitute a revert for xRR purposes, the editor in question must have intended it to undo a particular edit, in whole or in part. This can be shown either by direct evidence such as use of undo or rollback, or mention of revert in the edit summary, or by circumstantial evidence such as a recent or ongoing edit war on the matter, or restoration of an old revision of the page that is unlikely to have occurred from normal editing. In this case we have evidence of neither, and I think that the edit is not a revert, and the 1RR block is in error.

    These views, I believe, are also consistent with previous AE practice. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive73#SlimVirgin, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive116#Dalai lama ding dong. T. Canens (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm in broad agreement with T. Canens. In the most hypertechnical sense, we might be able to call just about any edit a revert—even a typo fix "reverses" the typo. I do not see the second edit as having been a revert in the sense that we normally use the word, and so do not believe 1RR was violated. The appealing party does not dispute that the other edit was a revert, so I didn't examine that one. 1RR is intended to prevent disruptive edit warring, not normal editing. Seraphimbladepublic (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I also agree with T. Canens. The 3RR/1RR rules are intended to nip edit warring in the bud. Blocking, per 1RR, for a "revert" of an edit that was done weeks ago is (IMO) a distortion of the definition of a revert, and this block makes no sense at all to me. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This AE request is an appeal of Mor2's 48-hour block. Since the block has expired the request is moot. Why don't we declare the appeal successful and close it. EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I would make a notation in the block log and in the ARBPIA log to the effect that we have found the block to be unwarranted on appeal before closing this, but otherwise no objections to Ed's proposal. T. Canens (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Agreed with this resolution. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Agreed on the notation. Without some highly visible indication that the now-expired block was inappropriate, another admin (or even the same admin) might assume it was OK and feel justified in issuing a similar block down the road. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 08:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I would also support the idea of reviewing the current official description of the 3RR policy, to make it clear that 3RR/1RR is to be interpreted within the context of stopping or preventing edit wars. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 08:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm not particularly sure that's necessary or even desirable; the current wording has the virtue of clarity, and I'm not sure it is even possible to add qualifiers like this without opening up opportunity for wikilawyering and endless headache. (Honestly, I'm not even sure that my own views, which are expressed in what I believe to be significantly more definitive terms than "within the context of stopping or preventing edit wars", are not wikilawyerable; happily, if someone ever tries to wikilawyer, I can always easily revise it.) I think the best approach is still judicious exercise of admin discretion. Regardless, that's a discussion best reserved for another page.

          Unless any uninvolved admin objects (or gets to it first), I'll close this appeal as successful and annotate the block log and the ARBPIA log accordingly in about 12 hours. T. Canens (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Bali ultimate[edit]

Bali ultimate is topic-banned, as outlined in WP:TBAN, for six months from the area of conflict as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, that is, everything related to the Arab-Israeli or Palestinian-Israeli conflict.  Sandstein  11:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Bali ultimate[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
--Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Bali ultimate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 00:30 28 December 2012 "Modern ignoramuses can start here ... This place is pathetic that it gives equal voice to experts and propagandists (yes, I'm talking about "ankhmorpork" and "brewcrewer" when I write that). If they suggest that wire services don't move opinion pieces they're either lying or ignorant". Bali ultimate earlier specified that he himself was the "expert"; this leaves the others as the "propagandists", to which he adds the "either lying or ignorant" provocation. The edit summary here makes an attempt to squirm out of this being a direct personal attack, but is then reversed by the edit summary in the next diff;
  2. 00:34 28 December 2012 "You know what, here's the massive opinion section at Reuters for the propagandists (anonymous ones, notice)" with edit summary "totally full of it, and proven to be so. They should be ashamed, but they have no honor". (my emphasis)
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 4 October 2012 by Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) "This page is under WP:ARBPIA sanctions. I consider your conduct in making posts of this kind to come under the heading of seriously failing to adhere to expected standards of behaviour. Consider yourself lucky that the longer block under that sanction was not imposed on this occasion. Please find a way to conduct your disagreements in a less aggressive and provocative manner" - note the conduct in question was an incident where Bali ultimate was making the same assertions about other editors being "propagandists"
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
  • 02:46 28 December 2012 Bali ultimate removes warning from uninvolved administrator The Bushranger (talk · contribs) with edit summary "run along to activities more suited to your talents".
  • I consider the original accusation of "hounding" to be unfounded, and quite frankly the whole thing should've been closed down long ago.
  • I've not edited the ANI thread nor the Operation Pillar of Defense article (an Israeli strike against Hamas, therefore clearly covered by WP:ARBPIA) where the disagreement started, but Bali ultimate has made some similar comments about me in the past (that one was not related to an ARBPIA issue) so he is not at present on my Christmas card list.
  • The other editors involved have not indulged in any ad hominem behaviour in that ANI thread on either side of the dispute (silly though it is), thus making these personal attacks all the more unreasonable.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Bali ultimate[edit]

Statement by Dan Murphy[edit]

How amusing. I stand by my statement that anyone who says that wire services don't typically move opinion pieces are either ignorant or liars. There is no third option. I'll go further and say an attempt to disqualify news reporting on the basis of offensive opinion pieces in the same outlet is a low tactic, typical of the gaming in this topic area at this website. I am not aware of any outlet (and I read lots of them -- lots of them) that has never moved an opinion piece that I didn't find offensive in some way or another. That includes my own employers. So it goes. Nableezy: Yes, we probably have little in common in our views about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. My bedrock value is intellectual honesty. As long as folks have that, they'll have few problems with me. Well, I'm in Cairo for the next couple of weeks working. Have fun y'all.Dan Murphy (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Bali ultimate[edit]

Since did ANI fall under ARBPIA? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Since it's used to further a dispute about an Israeli airstrike on Hamas. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Ya, but that was not what Bali posted about was it? Did he even mention the article? Or the content dispute? Anyway everyone gets overexcited at ANI, it is hardly a hanging offence. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, he mentioned the content dispute. People do indeed get overexcited at ANI, but the arbitration remedy in question says "assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks" - it does not mention "except when you get overexcited at ANI". As I already pointed out in the request, this is not a case of "everyone" getting overexcited, it's a case of one specific editor once again attempting to personalise the PIA dispute in a way that he's been warned about (and sanctioned for) previously. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if Bali would substantiate his "expert view" that mainstream news networks publish hate-filled diatribes against ethnic groups. Ankh.Morpork 13:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This has to be among the sillier AE threads in some years, and that is saying something. Yes, one editor is overexcited, the editor who gleefully brought an AE thread over a comment that any number of administrators had already seen and any one of them could deal with if they felt it worthy of something more than a shrug. nableezy - 14:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks like a straightforward violation of both WP:NPA and Discretionary Sanctions. It is up to admins whether to do anything about it. Looking at their user page, this is only one example of this user's behavior in this manner. Sadly, this is now so common on Wikipedia that maybe it has become acceptable. We will see shortly by the reaction of AE admins. Either way, it is useful because some clarity regarding civility enforcement in senstive disputes (and not only on I/P) might emerge as a result - BorisG (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I really don't think this is a frivolous or silly AE case. Perhaps Bali was a constructive editor at some point, but in the IP area over the past year, nearly all his actions appear to have been disruptive, calling this person or that a propagandist. His recent action on his talk page seems to underscore this - deleting a warning against personal attacks by Bush Ranger with the following edit summary: "run along to activities more suited to your talents" [51] and deleting Demiurge's notification of the AE [52] with the following summary: "tootle along dearie". It seems quite apparent that Bali has no desire to reform his disruptive behavior or even recognize that there is a problem. His IP-related activity on Wikipediocracy [53] also deserves a closer look, where he's identified his top 10 editors promoting a "pro-settler agenda coupled with an agenda to dehumanize Palestinians in particular and Muslims in general" as part of a concerted "propaganda effort" on Wikipedia. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Who cares? Completely pointless report. Volunteer Marek 19:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This request does not refer to editing on articles or their talk pages, so should be dismissed. I do not personally agree with Bali ultimate's use of WP:ANI to soapbox, but it seems that many other editors play similar games. Mathsci (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • @Cailil: The OED defines "propagandist" as: 1. A person who produces or disseminates propaganda, esp. as a political strategy; an advocate of the systematic use of propaganda; a person devoted to the propagation of a particular doctrine, idea, etc. Assuming good faith, as we ought to do, let's suppose that Bali Ultimate meant the word in the third sense: a person devoted to the propagation of a particular doctrine, idea, etc. A brief glance at the contributions of the editors to whom Bali Ultimate applied the term will show that he is correct. Just because you think the word always has negative connotations, in fact it does not. Regardless of what one thinks of the civility policy it is not possible to enforce it sensibly if we do not pay attention to the actual meanings of the words used.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • AGF is not a suicide pact; when "propagandist" is combined with "lying" and "ignorant" and "they have no honor" and the insinuations about the other editors' opinions being worth less because they are (in Bali ultimate's opinion) "anonymous" and all the rest of it, then yes, it's more than reasonable to believe the word is being used with a negative connotation. Presumably Bali ultimate could have clarified that if he made a statement - but it seems he has chosen not to. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If someone asserts as a statement of fact something that's demonstrably false then it's not an attack to say that they're either lying or they're ignorant. In fact it's a tautology.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It is a tautology often used to make personal attacks. How hard is it to say "You are mistaken"? Rich Farmbrough, 16:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC).
Cailil, since when exactly has ANI been unable to police itself? I was unaware that there was a dearth of administrators there, or even in that section. It doesnt really matter, I doubt Bali will care, but you dont see anything wrong with the idea that one of the few people on Wikipedia that is actually qualified to write about this topic would be barred from doing so? Because some random person who is watching and waiting for the chance to say "gotcha" and come running here doesnt have anything better to do? That seems a bit backwards, but then again so do most things on Wikipedia. Never mind, carry on. nableezy - 19:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
A battleground mentality is not a suitable qualification for writing about this topic area, no. As for ANI, yes there's less admins than usual around at the moment, and quite a few of them have been busy blocking each other and/or recovering from the consequences. Your insinuation that I'm "waiting and watching" and have "nothing better to do" - yes I watchlist ANI, but that's hardly unusual. Given the number of AE requests you've brought against your ideological opponents, it seems a rather odd thing to say. I'm in the fortunate position of not having any ideological opponents in this topic area, but I don't see that disqualifying me from making an AE request. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
A battleground mentality is not a suitable qualification for writing about this topic area, no. - you obviously have no idea of what you're talking about.Volunteer Marek 03:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I think there was maybe one time that I brought a complaint about something I wasnt involved in. About something that happened on an article's talk page. And when I say qualified, I dont mean some random person who read the wiki rulebook on how to "be nice". I mean somebody who has professional qualifications. And come on now, you may not have ideological opponents, but you rather obviously have personal opponents, opponents that you for whatever misguided reason wish to see punished for past sleights. And by the looks of it you probably succeeded. Congratulations, really. No sarcasm at all. nableezy - 03:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
It isn't about "being nice", it's about repeatedly violating an arbcom ruling. A scrap of paper doesn't mean much if a person is demonstrably incapable of acting in a professional, or even reasonable, manner when editing in a particular topic area. (Actually the repeated instances, always on the same side, in the same topic area, make any such scrap of paper look to mean a great deal less.) And my concern here isn't about "past sleights", my concern is about behaviour that is plainly detrimental to the encyclopedia - just as that has been my concern every other time I've got involved in this topic area. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This is just foolish. Whats the aim here, a cooperative editing environment, or an encyclopedia? I dont want you to think that I say this because Bali is my ideological ally, Id bet lots and lots of money that he would disagree with most of my positions. He doesnt even spend that much time editing in the topic area, but when he does he is an asset to the goal of making an encyclopedia. Yall are lucky enough to have somebody paid to write about the Middle East do it for free here. You would be wiser to ask him what he thinks is wrong rather than shut him up. nableezy - 05:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps pompously declaring that you have self-imposed a block, which you are supposedly still under, and then flagrantly flouting it, has given rise to the impression that your editing can be "dishonest"? Ankh.Morpork 11:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I try to save admin and editors time by imposing my own sanctions for inadvertent slip-ups, yes. In the last case, no one made a fuss. It was a good faith error. But I dislike lapses of attention in myself, and so suspended myself from editing articles . What does this quiet notification on my own obscure page, and my observance of it, generate in the hostile environment some enjoy stirring? Contemptuous accusations of ‘grandiose’ grandstanding, self-promotion, ‘much fanfare’, suggestions that I am ‘advertising how ethical I am (otherwise people might get the wrong impression by just looking at (my) behaviour’. And now, here, your own spin that I am ‘flagrantly flouting it’, that my declaration was ‘pompous’ and justifies the impression I am ‘dishonest’. There are a lot of abusive adjectives being thrown my way here, that far outweigh in malicious throwweight the remarks you and a few others find so deplorable in Bali Ultimate. For the record, on my page where I list my self-suspensions, it should be clear that they refer to article editing, and I have not edited any I/P article since 9 December (well I did slip up just once and realizing the error immediately self reverted). What is being flouted here is both an ability to read honestly the record, and to assume good faith, proof enough that this place is poisoned by sheer POV-pushing tacticism. Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I can't make out if this is sad or hilarious, though I am sure this case is ridiculous. I can just imagine if these administrators had any power in the real world, everytime the Southern Poverty Law Center were to point out a hate group these admins would attack the SPLC for not being nice while ignoring the terrible actions of the hate groups. Sepsis II (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Disclaimer: my comment is not about BU but about general civility approach. There is a huge difference between general political discourse, where SPLC operates, and where freedom of speech is paramount, and a collaborative workplace like Wikipedia, where civility of internal communication is essential to create an appropriate collaborative environment. I think of Wikipedia as a workplace, and try to talk to people the same way I talk to colleagues. Not as a pub or a sports stadium, where different standards of civility apply. You don't tell your work collagues that they are lying or ignorant, even when you think they are, do you? And before someone points out the difference, it does not matter if the work is paid or unpaid, under your real name of a pseudonim. Obviously, many editors do not share my approach. But for now, wp:civility is still one of the four pillars of wikipedia. If they disagree, they need to campaign to change the policy. - BorisG (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure the analogy works well. If Wikipedia were a work place I think a large number of people would probably have been fired for acting against the interests of the organization, misusing resources to pursue outside interests and reputation damage etc, together with the people who collaborated with them. As for civility, it's a tricky issue but I see that the policy refers to "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" rather than "well considered accusations of impropriety that are consistent with evidence presented". In the blocking for incivility section it says "Be sure to take into account all the relevant history" among other things. I don't think that has happened in this case. Of course I'm wiki-lawyering and sampling the policy in a biased way but that is probably because my view is that the root of the problem is the presence of editors who edit in a systematically biased way and Wikipedia's apparent inability or unwillingness to deal with them rather than people's reactions to them. If I were an AE admin I would set Dan/BU a challenge - provide sufficient evidence to support your statements, it will be examined and the editors you are concerned about will be <some suitable sanction> if your concerns are found to be valid. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, you will be <some suitable sanction>. This seems like a better approach to me. AE needs to develop ways to address causes as well as effects. It needs to be able to identify and deal with bias and civil POV-pushing in the ARBPIA topic area as well as incivility. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
tl;dr... go watch the youtube videos of the guy and it won't be surprising that he isn't making friends here even with people who share the same bias.Cptnono (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Reading is underrated around here. nableezy - 06:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Sean, I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree regarding civility. I work in a large organisation, and deal not just with colleagues but also with students, some of whom are lazy, ignorant, cheating, all sorts of things. And it is not wrong (indeed, it is required) to point out their faults and indiscretions, and indeed to seek sanction, etc, but it must be done in a civil manner. If someone is a fool, it is never useful to tell them. There are always other ways to state your concerns. And no, the existence of proof that a statement is incorrect, biased etc, is not a valid reason for using the word lying. As for bias, etc, well I agree that this is a serious problem on Wikipedia, maybe more serious than incivility. But (1) everyone has bias, although few would admit it, even to themselves. And (2), in my view, incivility does not help solve the bias problem. - BorisG (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The problem for me is that incivility is treated like noise when it should be treated more like signal. Like pain, ignoring it or doing nothing but switching it off is usually not a smart move. I'm happy to admit my bias on the civility issue as I don't see civility as any more effective than incivility here although incivility has the advantage of sometimes being funny. I agree that incivility does not help solve the bias problem but does it really change anything ? Call me cynical but I have a hard time believing that Dan/BU's targets suffered in any way or that what he said damaged the functioning of the topic area at all. Perceived effectiveness of civility with respect to behavioral changes here (not that I can think of any examples of the effectiveness of civility off hand) is likely to just be regression toward the behavioral mean. Imposing civility doesn't seem to be effective, it's just something that Wikipedia has decided helps, like prayer and snake oil. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
"I have a hard time believing that Dan/BU's targets suffered in any way" -- personally I find it difficult to imagine that someone would make this type of outburst, repeatedly, unless they believed it likely to have some effect on the targets or on others' perceptions of the targets. Seriously, what other purpose does all this "shitheel" stuff have? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if "cynical" is the right term for someone who completely reverses himself when discussing his allies vs his opponents. [55]. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
This is an example of the inherent dishonesty of fake civility and the way it is used in the topic area as doublespeak. It's also an example where incivility on my part would be very appropriate but alas ineffective. NMMNG, you might want to read what I wrote after that where you will note that I said "if he...could support the accusation with sufficient evidence I would have no objection at all to the label being used because it would be accurate" and here at AE and ask yourself whether it is likely that I think everything Dan said qualifies as "a pile of evidenceless idiotic crap" or whether I think there are editors who can reasonably be described as propagandists. Then you can try to look for the bit where I say "If you are unable or unwilling to do that, you will be <some suitable sanction>". The rules dictate that Dan should likely receive a block for what he said just like Bugs should have been blocked but the substance of the cases are, in my view, quite different. Either way, it is evidence that matters. Editors should be given the opportunity to support their statements, no matter how incivil, with evidence. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anyone can argue that there are not propagandists editing wikipedia, and that they do damage to wikipedia and annoy the hell out of other editors. If one editor declares another a propagandist, and the declarer can provide substantial evidence of their claim, it should not be taken as an attack, similar to when one editor seriously questions the competence of another editor. I think Bali should have filed a more official complaint against these two proclaimed propagandists rather than what he did, though this faux pas is not serious enough for administrative action so long as Bali can prove his claims. Sepsis II (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I follow this general rule: Editors that recklessly throw around the propagandist label toward others on Wikipedia are generally propagandists themselves or lack the patience and good-faith necessary to work constructively with others on Wikipedia. I mean, it's laughable that Mr. Murphy included me (and others) on a top 10 list of editors pushing an Israeli "pro-settler agenda"[56] when I sparingly edit such articles. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Who are your "colleagues," Seraphimblade? I object to the topic ban. Truth is truth, don't ban the messenger.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That phrase is generally taken to mean the other people able to edit that section. Thus, not you or me :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

What this request demonstrates is just how dysfunctional WP:AE is, on the administrator side. It doesn't just fail to solve problems in contentious topic areas it makes them worse. The discussion on Dan's talk page [57] as well as some of the above (ignoring the usual partisan bickering) is basically saying, "Yes, Dan, you're right, but you didn't put it in the right words and we have these DISCRETIONARY SANCTIONS in this topic area so we must punish you because that's how Arbitration Enforcement works!". In the minds of the admins who self-select onto this page this constitutes "solving" this problem. Now, this kind of thinking, if it had a track record of actually improving the situation in contentious topic areas, would perhaps be justified. But this whole IP mess has been getting worse and worse and worse, and all the WP:AE sanctions handed out in the past (to both sides) haven't improved the situation one bit. In fact the more WP:AE gets involved in the IP area, the worse it gets. Maybe that's a clue that you guys don't have the competence to intervene in this topic area (if anyone does) and should stop pouring the gasoline onto the fire (even if that is done with well intentions). One piece of evidence for why and how this is happening is how disconnected the discussion in the "Comments by others about the request concerning Bali ultimate" section is (which, while full of bickering, actually sort of manages to address the real issue at hand) from the discussion in the "Result concerning Bali ultimate" section is. The latter can basically be described as "we don't know what the fuck we are doing but we got to do something so let's hand out some bans and feel all self-righteous". It's hubris.

What is really needed is a general ban from people filing IP related requests, or at least a ban on all the admins that have been active on WP:AE for the past few years from handling IP related requests in the foreseeable future since their track record is so abysmal. I'm not asking for an improvement (it's a difficult topic area), just, please, stop making it worse! Volunteer Marek 01:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Any evidence that AE sanctions make things worse, please? I am not sure it is getting worse, but if it does, please show that this is as a result of AE sanctions. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Go through the history page of WP:AE for the past few years. The only conflating factor is the Wikipedia-wide decline in editor participation which translates into a bit less fighting, even in this contentious topic, essentially because people have gotten bored (which is a good thing). Other than that, since this request looks just like a request from 2007, 2008 or 2009 that pretty clearly illustrates that at the very least things haven't gotten better. Have they gotten worse because of WP:AE? Causality is hard to demonstrate conclusively. But the very fact that all these IP conflict people ALWAYS come running to WP:AE on the flimsiest of excuses is pretty good evidence of the fact that they regard WP:AE and the dupes who "administrate" it as a pretty effective battleground tool. Like I've said before, for topic areas like IP, WP:AE is just the equivalent of exporting new weapon technologies to war torn countries. It doesn't solve the issues, just ups the stakes. Stop it. Stop "administratin'".Volunteer Marek 02:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, so what you're saying is that the people from "2007, 2008 or 2009" that behaved like this either got banned from the topic area, or "got bored" (probably due to having been banned from the topic area on other accounts too many times). And this is an argument that this person with this 2007-style approach to the topic area should not be removed from it for a while? I'm not buying it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Any honest reading of what I said above makes that clear. The fact that this topic area is still a problem after five years of arbitration enforcement is illustrated by the filing of this report, which just exemplifies the entrenched battleground mentality of some of the participants. The discussion by the admins below illustrates how this mentality is enabled by them.Volunteer Marek 15:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

VM, I think you misread the problem. The root problem here is that its never about the content. Look at what happened prior to Murphy's comments. A user who regularly uses such "sources" as Cybercast News Service, UN Watch, or Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (all in the same edit!) when it suits him attempted to disqualify one of the few Palestinian news organizations on the basis of their having published an op-ed that he found particularly offensive. That is the type of problem that AE should solve, by kicking such an editor to the curb for hypocritical gaming and tendentious editing. But no. Another user holding a grudge from an earlier interaction with Murphy saw in this absurdly hypocritical issue a comment made by Murphy as an opportunity to exact revenge. As though Murphy, and not Wikipedia, suffers from a ban. If any one of the admins were willing to look at AnkhMorpork's and Bali ultimate's contributions to this topic area, or for that matter Bali ultimate's and Demiurge1000's, and make a determination as to which one of those two Wikipedia would be better off with when looking at the point of this place supposedly is, they would be unable to justify removing Murphy. But they dont do that. The content almost never matters. Its always these trivialities that are given immense attention as though they have anything to do with writing an encyclopedia. And Im sure you realize this, but nothing is going to change any minds in that section below. I dont know if they know that their decision damages the encyclopedia, or if they dont care if it does. The collegial environment, thats what counts. The articles, not so much. This place is a waste of time, time much better spent convincing people that because of dumbfounding decisions like this and concerted efforts to turn articles into propaganda pieces (like ...) that nothing they read on Wikipedia on anything even remotely controversial can be trusted .nableezy - 04:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That is the type of problem that AE should solve (my emphasis) - I don't think we're disagreeing here.Volunteer Marek 15:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

So VM, you are now saying it is not necessarily getting worse, but it is not getting better, and AE does not seem to solve the problem. That much I tend to agree, but this is a far cry from saying AE is making things worse. Admins are just doing their bit enforcing established discretionary sanctions, and it is not their fault at all that the problem is not getting solved. Maybe the ArBcom sanctions are not the best tool, maybe the whole process is inadequate, but this is not the fault of volunteer admins. Two more points: (1) AE have seen cases not just on civility, but also on other serious policy vioolations, such as misrepresentation of soources, etc. Quite a few bad apples have been banned, and without it, the situation would be even worse. And (2), don't forget the deterrent effect, which is real but difficult to estimate. So I think AE is a net positive, it's just inefficient and insufficient. Maybe what Gatoclass was proposing would be better, but I do not know what came out of it. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

When? I think I know what you are referring to, but that inst really a fair case. The one Im thinking about, where a user straight up lied about what a source said, putting in the opposite of what the source said, nothing happened. Nothing. Oh, and in that same complaint, there was another edit where a user put an incontestable error of fact in an "encyclopedia" article, still nothing happened. This place is not equipped to handle the actual problems. nableezy - 04:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
You are possibly right. - BorisG (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Sanctioning him for his comments at ANI would be a mistake, in my opinion. They were robust. That's all. If you sanction him for these, under your interpretation of our civility norms, you'll be assuming a level of personal wisdom and insight into those norms that no one else has the audacity at present to assume. If he'd made those comments on an article talk page (I believe article talk pages to be sacrosanct) perhaps I'd be more sympathetic. Civility, sadly, is still a work in progress here. Please realise that and, for the time being, while the community is actively, in many venues, still nutting out where we stand, err on the side of caution. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Anthonyhcole, especially if BU agrees to abide by civility policies in the future. It is worrying that he doesn't though. - BorisG (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
That would be requiring him to abide by a policy that none of us understands at the moment. Provided he's not disrupting articles and their talk pages, please leave him alone. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Nableezy, I think you're dead on up above. About everything you say, but about this in particular: "The collegial environment, thats what counts." And as our colleague, Demiurge1000, in a deep, deep observation, was kind enough to point out explicitly, we don't count as colleagues of theirs. It's their collegial atmosphere they're concerned with. And we can all get picked off one by one and walk away muttering Eppur si muove.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Cailil, just to clarify, are you saying Dan has been edit-warring? I haven't seen evidence of it in this thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning Bali ultimate[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Right, this is a lovely minefield for us to dance through. But frankly Bali Ultimate's remarks show him taking his battlefield mentality from one subject area to ANi. That does violate the sanctions. Elen already clarified for him that his remarks were not acceptable and his repetition of them elsewhere does not take them beyond the RfAr's remit - to my mind it makes the matter worse.
    The diff above (accusing others of being propagandists)[58], alone is unacceptable and this is actionable under normal rules. But more to the point it shows prolonged and escalating inappropriate conduct which is not conducive to a collaborative environment (thus a direct violation of the ruling).
    In terms of how far we take this I'd like to see some input from other sysops but currently I see a corrective measure of some sort being necessary to tone Bali Ultimate's actions down--Cailil talk 17:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Cailil that this does fall under ARBPIA. Taking nastiness to a different page is not a way to evade arbitration remedies, and ArbCom recently made clear that they do consider topic bans to cover portions of any page that discuss the topic, even if that is not the primary topic of that particular page. It would seem to logically follow that the same applies to topical restrictions. Given that Bali ultimate has been made aware by two different uninvolved admins that this behavior is unacceptable and sanctionable (and those were hardly his first run-ins with civility problems), and has treated those with dismissiveness and additional rudeness, I don't think yet another stern warning is going to help matters. I would propose a minimum of a six-month topic ban from all material covered by ARBPIA, broadly construed, but at this point the fact that repeated warnings (and blocks) have gone unheeded is verging on calling for an indefinite one. As to the above discussion: One "qualification" for editing in a contentious area is the ability to deal reasonably and civilly with those one disagrees with. Situations in these areas can escalate quickly and badly, and that's why the restrictions were put in place to begin with. Editors who fan the flames in such areas can and will be removed from them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Unless there's any objection from my colleagues, will close this with a six-month topic ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Since my effort to negotiate at User talk:Bali ultimate#WP:AE still open was not successful, I'm now supporting a six-month topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that the edits at issue are personal attacks, and as such clearly violations of our "expected standards of behavior" as described in the discretionary sanctions authorization. They are also covered by the WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions because they relate to articles in the area of conflict outlined in that decision. Judging by his statement here and the discussion linked to by EdJohnston above, Bali ultimate's defense can be summarized as "but I was correct in describing others as ignorants, propagandists etc." This is wrong because personal attacks are not under any circumstances justified or excusable. If we disagree with others, we can and must say so politely - focusing on the content, not on the other editor. Together with a relatively recent 1-week-block for personal attacks in the same topic area, this attitude of Bali ultimate's indicates that if unchecked he is likely to continue making personal attacks on those he disagrees with. A sanction is therefore necessary. Because the personal attacks have so far occurred only in the ARBPIA topic area, a topic ban from that subject matter is an initially appropriate sanction. Six months are rather long, I think, but I agree with this sanction with the understanding that we would be open to granting an appeal in a month or two, if the appeal reflects a genuine understanding that personal attacks are always unacceptable, and contains credible assurances that they won't reoccur. – As concerns the objections in the discussion above that AE admins only bother with formalities such as civility, rather than with the alleged underlying problems in the topic area: Well, we can only look at the cases we're presented with. If there is persistent and problematic (clearly non-neutral, source-falsifying, etc.) content editing on the part of any editor, that can be examined and possibly sanctioned in the context of separate AE requests. If there is adequate evidence in the form of well-explained diffs, of course.  Sandstein  00:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with Sandstein - I'd be on board with this as long as it may be appealed after 6-8 weeks. I'll echo Sandstein that if systematic misuse of sources is/was occurring it can and should be brought here as long as it is evidenced fully & properly. However it should be noted that even in that context misbehaviour such as editwarring or incivility is not excusable--Cailil talk 12:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    @-Anthonyhcole - no I'm not. I'm merely stating that any 2 wrongs don't make a right--Cailil talk 13:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Per the above discussion, I'm closing this request with the following sanction under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions: Bali ultimate is topic-banned, as outlined in WP:TBAN, for six months from the area of conflict as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, that is, everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (including the Palestinian-Israeli conflict).  Sandstein  11:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)  Sandstein  11:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


User is topic banned from Greek-Turkish relations -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
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 Maurice07[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Maurice07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

This user has engaged in long-term disruption and edit-warring across many Greece-related articles. I have omitted the Cyprus-related articles which although they have also seen widespread disruption from this user, they are not subject to ARBMAC.

Here are some examples of the relentless, long-term edit-warring by this user.


Long-term disruption and edit-warring showing intent to remove, and failing that, downgrade, any connection to Greece regarding Imia.

  1. Revision as of 13:18, 26 April 2012 Future Perfect at Sunrise m (rv, unconstructive POV-pushing) eliminates Greek name, gets reverted by FPaS
  2. Revision as of 13:23, 26 April 2012 Maurice07 eliminates Greek name again.
  3. Revision as of 13:25, 26 April 2012 Maurice07 Inserts Turkish name first then Greek name.
  4. Revision as of 13:33, 26 April 2012 Future Perfect at Sunrise m (rv, stop this now.)
  5. Revision as of 14:35, 26 December 2012 Maurice07 (Undid revision 529774906 by Dr.K. Now is not part of a template.). Edit-wars to eliminate Dodecanese template.
  6. Related to Imia: Revision as of 21:13, 29 June 2012 Removes Imia from the List of islands of Greece.
Greek–Turkish relations
  1. Revision as of 15:36, 20 December 2012 Maurice07 Reverts FPaS.
  2. December 2012 Maurice07 (→‎Aegean Sea: More Common? So you say!)
  3. Revision as of 14:36, 21 December 2012 Maurice07 (→‎Aegean Sea: As usual,nationalist behaviors.You can not tolerate even the name of the original article.)
Massive, long-term, edit-warring

Between 24-25 September performing approximately 85 (eighty five reverts) sometimes with bot-like speed averaging sometimes 4 reverts per minute, on various lists of Diplomatic missions trying to put Turkey in Europe against consensus.

Gets blocked on 26 September after ANI report Runaway edit-warring by Maurice07.

On 3 January he resumes the September edit-warring with five reverts in 3 days: Revision as of 23:37, 3 January 2013 Maurice07

See also: User:Maurice07 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Sending to WP:AE)

Obsession about adding Turkish names of Greek locations

See here, where he adds the Turkish name of Komotini in the article of Golden Dawn.


Edit-warring to add the Turkish name at the lead despite the existence of a separate name section in the article.

  1. Revision as of 11:28, 9 January 2013 Maurice07 (Reverted 1 edit by Dr.K.: See other languages of Xanthi/İskeçe!! Greek,French,German,Italian,Bulgarian...)
  2. Revision as of 02:04, 11 January 2013 Maurice07(I realize that.It's available name section,why do you not accept to be included here?) reverts Laveol although he says he realizes that there is a separate name section he still wants to highlight the Turkish name at the lead:
Languages of Europe

Insisting that a citation is needed that Greek is spoken in Turkey, a fact that is clearly well-established. Edit-warring as usual.

  1. Revision as of 10:36, 9 January 2013 Maurice07 (Undid revision 532110294 by Dr.K. There is no believable evidence!) i.e. no "believable evidence that Greek is spoken in Turkey".
  2. Revision as of 02:10, 11 January 2013 Maurice07 (→‎Greek: Turkey has a 2.500 Greek minority and source still necessary like Republic of Macedonia !!)
More evidence of disruption
  1. Edit-warring to add the Turkish version of Kalymnos Exhibiting the same behaviour as in Xanthi.
  2. Revision as of 17:19, 3 January 2013 Maurice07 (Undid revision 531065578 by Proudbolsahye irrelevant for this article !) Removing a link to Racism in Turkey from Anti-Armenianism.
  3. Revision as of 21:41, 3 September 2012 Maurice07 (Undid revision 510636570 by Chipmunkdavis Partially? It's not a good reason to retrieve! I completely agree that as a personal opinion.) Edit-warring about Cyprus on Turkey.
  4. Revision as of 20:02, 27 December 2012 Maurice07 (rv, irredent edits.) Calling another editor's referenced edits "irredentist" for using the geographical term Armenian Highlands.
  5. Revision as of 10:56, 3 December 2012 Maurice07 (Undid revision 526095933 by Dr.K. Southern Greek Cyprus is not recognized by the Turkey, this is a point of reference.) Removes Cyprus from the southern geographical neighbours of Turkey on the basis that Turkey does not recognise Cyprus. In other words clearly politically motivated editing.
  6. Revision as of 21:28, 24 September 2012 Maurice07 Modifies location of Istanbul from "Europe & Asia" to "Europe" alone. A clearly tendentious and dogmatic approach to geography.
Personal attacks
  1. Revision as of 23:40, 28 December 2012 (view source) Maurice07 (Undid revision 530025548 by Dr.K. Clearly WP:VAN ! Don't imposed.)
  2. Revision as of 23:58, 28 December 2012 (view source) Maurice07 (Undid revision 530209652 by Dr.K. Tendentious? It's interesting to hear from you.Unfortunately,u can not mention "impartiality" with your contribs in the article of Cyprus!!)
  3. Revision as of 14:36, 21 December 2012 Maurice07 (→‎Aegean Sea: As usual,nationalist behaviors.You can not tolerate even the name of the original article.)
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. ARBMAC warning #1 from FPaS back in April 2012.
  2. ARBMAC warning by FPaS about Imia/Kardak #2 on 26 December 2012
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The user rarely communicates on talkpages and he has contributed very little content to the encyclopaedia other than the relentless edit-warring and disruption.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Courtesy notice

Discussion concerning Maurice07[edit]

Statement by Maurice07[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Maurice07[edit]

Result concerning Maurice07[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • The constant edit warring suggests to me that sanctions are merited. Perhaps a topic ban from Greek-Turkish relations would be suitable? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • If no further feedback appears, I'll implement the topic ban shortly. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm also seeing a pattern here; I think a topic ban of the scope suggested by Heimstern would work, and could be quickly expanded if the problem comes up elsewhere. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have to agree, enacting ban now. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


Not actionable. The editor has not been able to edit since his notification about the arbitration case. Only edits made after that notification are potentially grounds for discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  00:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Aminul802[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Aminul802 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 18 December 2012 Accusations of vandalisim after I correctly removed the claim that Brownmiller (a BLP) had given a figure of 25000 rape victims, she had not, that was her estimate for forced pregnancies. Reverts an IP editor calling the IP a vandal [59] during an edit war he is involved with. This is in violation of principle 1
  2. 13 January 2013 Has used sockpuppets to advance his POV in violation of principle 2
  3. 9 January 201321 January 201215 December 2012 He is a WP:SPA whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to add as much negative information regarding the International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) or to any article connected to it in violation of principle 3
  4. 12 December 2012 He has edit warred BLP & link violations into articles in violation of principle 5 A great many diffs can be given for this if requested.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 13 January 2013 by CIreland (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Further proof of Aminul802 editing in such a way as to bias an article in a certain way are these. A great many of the sources he has used for criticism have the opposing view in them also, this is prime example [60] The source used (Ref Condemn) here has a rebuttal from Richard Rogers, who was head of the ECCC. This should have been added at the same time. He also used this which has Mizanur Rahman supporting the ICT yet he failed to add it. I also believe he has engaged in meatpupperty this editor has three edits then finds his way to the BLPN board to support Aminul802 in a discussion there, and then proceeds to reverting a BLP to Aminul802 favoured version.

This article falls under WP:ARBIPA as the ICT is prosecuting suspected war criminals from the Bangladesh liberation war which India was involved in.

I request he be topic banned from all articles broadly construed which deals with the ICT. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

He is currently requesting an unblock claiming the sockpuppet was in fact his wife. If this is proven to be the case then the violation of principle 2 can be discounted. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein, he was not given a warning earlier as I did not know such a warning had to be given, this is the first AE I have ever had to file. I would say this account is a SPA, the majority of his edits are to articles related to the ICT. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It would appear he had two sockpuppets[61] is another according to the SPI[62] Darkness Shines (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Aminul802[edit]

Statement by Aminul802[edit]

Aminul802 would like this discussion to take cognizance of his own statements here [63]. Aminul802 (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC) copied over by request Darkness Shines (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Aminul802[edit]

Result concerning Aminul802[edit]

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

This request is not actionable. Only one of the reported diffs is of a later date than the warning of 13 January 2013, and it is not on its face sanctionable. Also, it is clear from the reported user's contributions that they are not a single purpose account dedicated to that particular article. The earlier diffs are not sanctionable because they predate the warning, so I'm not examining them. The request should be closed without further action.  Sandstein  20:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein, that diff is from January 2012 - the editor is currently blocked for sockpuppetry and so has not been able to edit since the notification I gave. CIreland (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Right... Closing, then.  Sandstein  00:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • For the record, some new light has been added on the sockpuppet investigation, and I have declined the unblock and extended the block to a month per normal SPI procedures. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


Editor topic banned for three months, and indef banned from contacting people on their talk pages about discussions occurring on article talk pages within the topic area. KillerChihuahua 14:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
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 Lazyfoxx[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Lazyfoxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 14 January 2013 Canvassing
  2. 14 January 2013 Canvassing
  3. 9 January 2013 Original research
  4. 12 January 2013 Accusing other editors of having agenda
  5. 13 January 2013 Accusing other editors of having agenda.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 

The user was already sanctioned on this board for exactly the same conduct Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive110#Lazyfoxx mainly canvassing and accusing other editors of having agenda

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
  • The first two diffs are clear violation of canvassing as he notified two users that probably will support him in the argument.He notified only them.
  • The third diff in my opinion is violation of WP:OR the relevant quote from the source."Bedouins,Jordanians, Palestinians and Saudi Arabians are located in close proximity to each other, which is consistent with a common origin in the Arabian Peninsula" [64] nowhere the source use word "partial" that was added by the editor the rest of his edit regarding to this source is as I undestand his interpartation of graphs which is too WP:OR
  • I think the last two diffs speak for themselves.

--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Lazyfoxx[edit]

Statement by Lazyfoxx[edit]

I highly suggest anyone reading this to read through my entire statement, I have put a lot of thought, effort, and good faith into this, and would appreciate my opinions heard fully and duly.

  • First of all, the notification I made to both Nishidani and Nableezy were not violations of canvassing in my opinion. I used Appropriate notifications as stated in Canvass policy to inform some editors who have done great things in the past in regards to the Palestinian article irrespective of their position on the subject, I know very few editors who have contributed continuously to that article, I chose those two editors because I remember them illustrating extensive knowledge, on the subject in question, and felt that a discussion worth reviewing of more editors was taking place. As noted in Wikipedia:Canvassing my actions coincide with, "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following: On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. "
  • Now secondly, about your accusation of Original research, my edit on the quote you posted from the Behar study simply included more information from the study, including information regarding the purpose of the study which was determining Jewish relations to vary ethnic groups, since it included Palestinians, it was necessary to include this in the article besides your one quote relating the Palestinians in relation to Bedouins, Jordanians, and Saudi Arabians. As stated in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." This means to my understanding that if content relating Palestinians to some ethnic groups from a study is quoted on wikipedia, than we should also include other relevant information about the other ethnic groups studied, to keep a Neutral point of view and understand exactly what the study concluded.

Normal protocol as outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution, "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or tweak the wording. Be sure to include citations for any material you add, or it may be removed. If you do not know how to fix a problem, post a note on the talk page asking for help. To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in the edit summary, or if the change is potentially contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page."

  • Thirdly, I see you say that I have accused Chicago Style that he/she has an agenda, but you have not made a request for sanctions against for Chicago Style accusing me of having an agenda. If you read through the entire discussion we have had on that talk page you will see that Chicago Style clearly states his views in his edits but does not discuss them citing sources or assuming good faith, he makes his edits solely based on his opinions while ignoring Wikipedia Protocol and thus can be concluded to be expressing an agenda in his edits, in my opinion.

"When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or tweak the wording. Be sure to include citations for any material you add, or it may be removed. If you do not know how to fix a problem, post a note on the talk page asking for help."

The user Shrike, may possess unclean hands in this request in Arbitration, "those seeking equity must do equity". The misconduct I was sanctioned for in the past was when I was very new to Wikipedia and had not learned the policies yet, to bring that up in relation to this is not fair to me, in the past I was not even sure how to make a statement in my defense, I have come a long way since then providing much improvement to articles on Wikipedia. It's important to note that the editor who nominated me this time is the same from last time, is it reasonable to think he/she may hold a grudge against myself and has not assumed good faith with my edits? In discussion I asked Shrike simple questions regarding Wikipedia policy and although I answered every question they asked me about content, I was not given a dignified single response to my questions.

As I understand it "Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process: it is a last resort, only to be employed when all else has failed or there is very good cause to believe they will not help. Try other steps first, including discussion between disputants and, where appropriate, mediation. The Arbitration Committee only deals with the most serious, entrenched, or persistent disputes and cases of rule-breaking, where all other reasonable means have failed."

My edits on Wikipedia will and have always been for the improvement of articles and for the protection of Neutrality on Wikipedia, thank you.Lazyfoxx Lazyfoxx 14:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


Re:user:Brewcrewer (yada,yada)'

To my knowledge I had waited a day to revert Chicago Styles deletion of material, which in their offense was under no grounds, on the page. After reading what you said, I noticed that I was a couple hours off from 24 hours, but that was definitely not intentional on my part, I had full belief that I had waited a full day before reverting, and that's how I understood the 1RR restriction on the article, perhaps the clock on the computer I was working on was adjusted to a different time zone. I do not feel I should be sanctioned and judged in the light of a simple technicality which was unintentional and in good faith for the article.


Can you please read my entire statement before coming to the conclusion that I was canvassing? I clearly followed Appropriate Wikipedia legal policy, as stated in Wikipedia:Canvassing on notifying editors of discussions without canvassing, my attempts were in regard to bring into the discussion taking place editors that actually have contributed sourced and reliable material to the Palestinian article, the judgement on who I chose was made irrespective of the editors positions on anything. My decision was based on the fact that both Editors have contributed greatly to the Palestinian article, improving the article significantly in their time here on Wikipedia.
I quote Wikipedia:Canvassing,
"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.
An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following:On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.
Ideally, such notices should be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion. Do not use a bot to send messages to multiple pages.
Now I ask you, please, how is what have I done against Wikipedia policy?

(Moved from section for uninvolved administrators by KC):

The last time I was here I aknowledge that I was canvassing, but that is no reason to conclude that I am this time. The initial time was when I was unaware of the Canvass policy, and as you can see that was a year ago, I have come a long way since then and I urge you to assume good faith with my actions. I am not an admin I do not know the odd's and in's, I am still relatively new to the inner workings of Wikipedia. I did not know I needed to notify everyone who had edited in the last month, or the top 10 contributors, frankly I do not even know how to find the top 10 contributors, that knowledge would have been helpful to me and I would have done that if I knew how to. I did not know I needed to be scrupulously careful to use a clear metric for determining whom to notify, that was never brought to my attention. As I read on the policy regarding whom to notify, "Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them." Based on this passage, I only sent notifications to a couple editors, and based on this I picked two contributors who have participated in previous discussions and also display knowledge on the topic, Palestinians. I believe my actions were perfectly within bounds, and if Shrike was worried about me canvassing, he could have notified me on my talk Page to include more people in the discussion besides those two, because he apparently believes those two I chose would only support my views, which is his own bound is against Wikipedia's assume good faith policy. I have made many contributions on Palestinian article and I have nothing but the best intentions for the improvement of the article. Lazyfoxx 17:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Killerchihuahua

If you spend one minute reading through the talk page that Sean Hoyland remarks you will see why I needed to notify other editors. Chicago Style has been editing based on POV, and I wanted some editors that actually cited sources to at least see what was going on and maybe voice their opinions. I was also being ignored by the user Shrike when I asked him a simple question on Wikipedia policy regarding content on the Palestinian article. I included this all in my statement above which you said you read... Lazyfoxx 17:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Killerchihuahua

Like I just said, Chicago Style has been editing based on POV, and I wanted some editors that actually cited sources to at least see what was going on and maybe voice their opinions. I was also being ignored by the user Shrike when I asked him a simple question on Wikipedia policy regarding content on the Palestinian article. I do not know what Rfc or DR are, that's why I didn't use them, perhaps they could have been of use to me. I used appropriate behavior according to wikipedia, I notified "editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed." Lazyfoxx 18:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Killerchihuahua

Thank you for letting me know what Rfc and DR are, I will be sure to properly use those in the future when need be now that I know. Also thank you for showing me how to find the top contributors. I remember you asked me why I did not inform the editors within the past month, if you look at the history of the Palestinian article, there are very few editors who I could have notified, most of the edits were vandalism of some sort and or edits by sockpuppet accounts, it seems most of the edits on the Palestinian page are by people not seeking to improve the article. Now that I know who the top contributors are I will be able to find more good faith editors.
Now, I must ask you, is that your personal opinion that "notifying editors on their talk pages is not a recommended approach" or is that a standard Wikipedia policy, if it is, can you show me where please? Because that contradicts the Wikipedia behavioral policy guideline that I was following that states at WP:CAN, "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." "Appropriate notification : "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed." Also, you did not respond to my justification for the notification of other editors, could you please do so, I think it only fair to me, since I did answer your questions. Lazyfoxx 19:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Killerchihuahua

By the way, now that I know the top contributors, is it alright if I notify the top 10 contributors to the Palestinian article to view this accusation against me and voice their opinions, I ask because my edits in my justification are for the betterment of that article and sanctioning me in my view would be detrimental to the progress of the page. Will I get another accusation of canvassing if I do that, or is it allowed? Lazyfoxx 19:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Killerchihuahua

So I am not allowed to request more peoples opinions on this accusation, and must solely rely on the people who have this talk page on their watch list? That does not seem very equitable to me.
If I am not allowed to contact other editors, can I at least request that more administrators take a look here? I don't have a problem with you, but I feel like you are not looking at the whole picture here and not assuming good faith with me just based on past events from a year ago that I have learned from and not repeated.
Also, can you please respond to my statement I made before the last one, I did not get a response to that one. Lazyfoxx 20:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Killerchihuahua

You did not address the entirety of my statement, the Wikipedia behavioral policy guideline that I was following which led to Shrike's accusation states at WP:CAN, "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." "Appropriate notification : "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed." You say DR is recommended but I did not know what DR was, so how could I have done it? Also you say DR is recommended, but that does not mean it is required, so even if I did know what I was, I did not need to do it. Also, the user Shrike made no attempt to DR and I'm positive a user that knows how to make Arbitration requests knows also how to engage in Dispute Resolution. Lazyfoxx 20:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe this accusation by Shrike is in itself a Bad-Faith request on his part. He justified himself in the request stating that my notifications "are clear violation of canvassing as he notified two users that probably will support him in the argument.He notified only them." That is Shrike's opinion that they would support me, as Nishidani has said above, Shrike is assuming bad faith with me. Lazyfoxx 21:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Killerchihuahua

I try to put the improvement and protection of content on Wikipedia before someone "expecting me to avoid any potential that any of my edits could be construed as canvassing" And it is bad faith to assume someone like myself is breaking the rules, just because I have done one bad thing in the past which I regret having done in my naiveness as a new editor. Saying I "should have known better" is not a good justification, everything that I did was perfectly acceptable according to Wikipedia policy. You say something is not recommended, but I have done something that is acceptable according to Wikipedia Policy, and it does not warrant banning me from something, you are being a bit extreme in judgement and assuming a lot for one in an Administrator position, are you not subject to Wikipedia Policy such as WP:AGF just like the rest of us? I believe it is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Lazyfoxx 21:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Killerchihuahua

I was not told that my recent edits might be considered canvassing, I was told by another editor on my talk page that my edits were "rather near the boundaries of WP:CANVASS regarding approaching an audience that might be considered partisan. You should consider being cautious with similar approaches in the future." In the user's post, they did not indicate that I need do anything on the current edit, they said to "be cautious with similar approaches in the future." After I read that statement by Demiurge1000, I took it to heart and responded, clearly stating that my intention with the edits was not canvassing, and I showed the wikipedia policy that I was following. I was also prepared to be more cautious with similar approaches in the future after reading his statement. The user:demiurge1000 assumed good faith with me as evidenced in his statement, and I wish more editors would adhere to that Wikipedia policy, including the accuser of my accusation, user:Shrike. I see you understand that my unintentional 1RR violation was sincere, but yet I believe you fail to give me the benefit of the doubt regarding the accusation of me canvassing, and solely base on the fact that I did something wrong once. If you can not tell by my edit history, I am not the same person who committed that one canvassing incident in the past anymore, I have become a far better contributor to Wikipedia, in fact I believe I have made significant improvements to the Palestinian article, earning myself a spot in the top 10 contributors of the article, I have prevented vandalism, added new material, and in my opinion have done nothing but benefit the project, if you feel that I deserve to be reprimanded for making an unintentional simple policy misunderstanding, than I must say, most of my faith in Wikipedia's administration has been lost. Lazyfoxx 04:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, I humbly request that you wait a bit longer than "several hours" to pursue action against me, is it too much to request 24 hours since my accusation was made...Say 13:28 January 16th,24 hours after Shrike's accusation? It is possible that other Administrators who normally patrol this area have been busy and working on other areas of Wikipedia, hence why I wished to notify any available previously. I would prefer the opinion of more than one person to decide my fate on here, I am not calling you a bad administrator, I just believe that it is fair, other users have already stated that your proposed sanctions are a bit harsh, I would like to know if other Admins share the same opinion. Lazyfoxx 04:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Seraphimblade,

I greatly appreciate your contributions, but I need to know, you said "especially given the disregard for an explicit warning about doing it again." regarding my canvassing, but where have I disregarded that warning? My edits were not in the intention of canvass as I stated above, and I justified myself for my reasoning. The article discussion in question was being filled with drivel without citing sources following consistence reverts while also not citing sources. My decision to include a couple top contributors to the discussion was solely to aid the discussion and article's reliability. I believe that WP:AGF in regards to me is being clouded by something I did in the past once explicitly before getting a block and understanding what I did wrong. Since then I have not had one offense, I have made many edits and my intent clearly shows good faith. Lazyfoxx 06:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Lazyfoxx[edit]

Comment by Brewcrewer[edit]

LazyFoxx appears to have violated 1RR a couple of days ago.[66][67] --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani[edit]

This repeated use of AE on frivolous grounds is getting rather farcical, Shrike.

‘he notified two users that probably will support him in the argument.’

I'm one of the users alluded to. The suggestion I would 'probably support' Lazyfoxx in any issue, not only violates WP:AGF, it quite patently ignores the record, and indeed, the direct consequence of Lazyfoxx contacting me. Above you accuse Lazyfoxx of accusing others of 'having an agenda'. In your suggestion I am a partisan who will predictably support one side, you are saying I have an agenda. What's bad for the goose (Lazyfoxx) is good for the gander (yourself).

Older editors are supposed to help relatively new ones here. This repeated use of AE when a little commonsense and friendly remonstrance can work equably is nasty and decidedly tactical. User:Plot Spoiler wasn't of course canvassed when, after a 3 year absence on a page he never edits, he suddenly showed up to make this egregiously bad revert edit others had removed, to support a side, without further bothering, as is his manner, to ever join the talk page discussion. No one reports this, though it occurs every other hour. No discussion, no evidence of article work, no evidence of anything other than hanging round, seeing a 'friend in need' of support and reverting to the text he favours. Infinitely more deplorable than a neophyte's request for assistance. All your needed to do was raise the manner on his page, explain the rule, and ask him to be more careful. To do otherwise is piddling and snarky.Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment to Plot Spoiler: ::It's not an attack. It's a comparison between the ostensibly rule-breaking behaviour complained of here and an instance of poor editing, - it's a pattern of yours to enter a page and do a mechanical revert in favour of one side, then disappear - which is never the object of complaint. I don't raise this on AE. I note it. I have shown the word 'false' violates sources that show the Hebron rumours were based in part on known facts here. A rumour that partially relates to a fact is not false (which in any case raises issues of WP:NPOV. If someone works with sources, takes time to read and research, and finds a blow-in just mechanically erasing that effort, and disappearing, he is within his rights to note the disparity. Articles are not written by pushing revert buttons, or whingeing about petty problems. They are written by people with a masochistic willingness to research a topic, propose edits, and discuss them with other editors. Shrike's use of AE over trivia like this, with a relative newby, is not the way to recruit people actually willing to contribute content. A warning to improve his familiarity with policy is sufficient in this case. Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Lazyfoxx.(a) No one reads walls of text per WP:TLDR (b) to write them, esp. at AE, is, within the culture of wikipedia, considered supplementary, if indirect, evidence that the editor is problematical.(c) Don't try administrator's impatience. Your case is one of hundreds of things they have to attend to.(d) you've made your case, so let it rest. You'll have to do time, like most of us. Take it on the chin, since, a little less enthusiasm and more knowledge of the way things work here (infringe the slightest rule and you will be summarily denounced) wouldn't have got you here. Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Plot Spoiler[edit]

I don't know why I'm being brought in on this, and I can't tell if you're being actually accusing me of being canvassed -- which is absolutely false and is a violation of WP:AGF and perhaps WP:Attack. Therefore, please strike those remarks. That page has long been on my watchlist, and it's very amusing that just adding the term "false" before rumors is considered an "egregiously bad revert edit." Stick to facts please. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by BorisG[edit]

I think this canvassing and OR issues are minor and do not warrant a long topic ban. I know the user has been warned but I suggest another strong warning would suffice. Or a short sanction at most. - BorisG (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dlv999[edit]

Agree with Boris. In my opinion what is more of a risk to content and the encyclopedia is that ARBPIA sanctions are being consistently used to attack and intimidate good faith editors for making minor or technical violations of policy. The topic area is riddled with disruptive sock accounts. As long as this remains the case it doesn't make much sense that we are handing out draconian topic bans to good faith editors who fall foul of the rules, because it just gives more weight to the sock accounts operating in the topic area illegitimately. Take a look at the history of the page in question. A brand new account with an experienced user behind it appears from nowhere and jumps straight into a contentious IP article to antagonize Ladyfox and ignore the IP editing restrictions. Given that we are working in an environment of systematic gaming by sock accounts does it really make sense to hand out a long topic ban for an editor who invited several long term editors in good standing to take a look at the article. Has Ladyfox' action caused any harm to the project? Dlv999 (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland[edit]

Focusing on one editor is a bit shortsighted. For the love of kittens, have a read through Talk:Palestinian_people#Behar_study and please stop Chicago Style (without pants) from filling that talk page up with irrelevant drivel. Canvassing is not helpful but WP:CANVASS is a guideline. WP:TALK is a guideline too, an important one, and disrupting ARBPIA by using a talk page as a forum is a "behavior that is unacceptable". Talk:Palestinian_people in particular would benefit from the instant blocking of anyone who expresses a personal opinion about the real world. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to provide anecdotal evidence in the forms of diffs by sampling a conversation. If you would prefer to not read the talk page section and come to your own conclusions about the conversation, that's okay. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning Lazyfoxx[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • I'm not sure if this has been done before, but I propose Lazyfoxx be banned from notifying any other editor of any discussion anywhere; the notices were canvassing, and this does not reflect on either of the editors notified (Nishidani and Plot Spoiler, you need to stop trying to defend yourself against having been canvassed. That is pointless; no one has accused you of any wrongdoing; even if 100 editors are found to have canvassed you that is not any negative reflection on your behavior.) Propose also a 3 month topic ban from all Middle Eastern topics, broadly construed. KillerChihuahua 15:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    LazyFoxx: I did read your entire statement. You have been here before for canvassing; while your notification was limited that does not convince me it was not selective. You did not use any methodology that I can see; you claim to have basically picked two contributors more or less at random, on the basis of your perception of their activity level on the article. You did not, for example, notify everyone who had edited in the last month. You did not notify the top 10 contributors who are still active. In short, you used no discernible metric. Given that you are aware of CANVASS and have even been brought here before regarding that policy, you would have been wise to either avoid notifications at all (first choice, IMO) or been scrupulously careful to use a clear metric for determining whom to notify. KillerChihuahua 16:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    BorisG: He was not warned, he was blocked for a week and told by the blocking admin that "next time I will not be so lenient."
    LazyFoxx: Why did you notify anyone at all?
    Sean.hoyland: I will be more than happy to review any evidence, in the form of diffs, which you wish to add. I will not, however, go spelunking into various talk pages on the off chance I will see what you want me to see. KillerChihuahua 17:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • LazyFoxx: Yes, I did read it, and I'm still not going to go spelunking, and your answer did not address the issue. Why, given your history, did you notify anyone? Why did you not use Rfc or DR? KillerChihuahua 17:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • While we wait to see if any other administrators wish to add input to this, I suggest Lazyfoxx read WP:DR, WP:Rfc (paying special attention to article Rfcs, not user Rfcs), and also perform this task: go to the edit history of any article. Look at the top rows of links, and you will see a link for Contributions. On Palestine People, following the link yields this result. I am still of the opinion that you should be banned from notifying other editors on their talk pages about discussions, but at least you'll know how to identify the top contributors of any article. Please note that on DR, advised approaches include General advice (which points one to the WP:DRN), Third opinion (which points one to WP:3, Request community input on article content (which points one to WP:RFC, Noticeboards (with links to specific issue noticeboards such as BLP), Subject-specific help, Editor assistance, and Last resort: Mediation. Note that notifying other editors on their talk pages is not a recommended approach. KillerChihuahua 19:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    No, it is not ok for you to notify other editors at this time. You are on AE and currently the only proposal for a remedy includes banning you from notifying other editors about discussions at all; while I applaud your good sense in asking, I am concerned that you're not quite getting the point. KillerChihuahua 19:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    My statement regarding contacting others not being recommended was specific to the paragraph in which I made that statement; I thought that it was clear by the context that I listed recommended approaches from the DR page and noted that contacting other editors is not in the list; ergo not a recommended approach. I hope this is now clear to you. And no, don't go pestering other administrators on their talk pages either; I have taken no precipitate action and have indeed made it clear I am waiting for others to add input if they wish. KillerChihuahua 20:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    Since I already addressed your defense of CANVASS I find it odd you wish me to reiterate. However: You have been here before for canvassing; you at that time received a one week block for, among other reasons, canvassing. I would expect you to avoid any potential that any of your edits could be construed as canvassing. You used no metric or organized reason in your choices for notification. In short, while one can notify others, it is not recommended (please see earlier discussion regarding what is, and is not, recommended or advised on DR) and you should have known better. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. I'm not going to re-explain why you notifying those editors was a Bad Idea. I'm more convinced than ever that you cannot distinguish when it is a good idea or not, and am certain you should be indef banned from doing so in order to prevent this kind of issue again. KillerChihuahua 20:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm ignoring the 1RR violation, as I think Lazyfoxx's explanation seems sincere; but as he's been blocked already for canvassing and battleground behavior, and was informed at that time that he was running the risk of being indef blocked if he transgressed again, we can hardly ignore that he's canvassing again, however limited the canvassing might be. As he was told his edits this time might be considered canvassing and he rejected the concern, rather than addressing it, it's fairly clear stronger measures are needed to prevent future canvassing. Unless another uninvolved administrator speaks out in the next several hours I will be implementing a 3 month topic ban and an indef ban on contacting other editors regarding article talk page discussions. KillerChihuahua 04:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I can accept the 1RR violation as an accidental error, though even there I would remind Lazyfoxx that 1RR is not an entitlement to sit there, watch the clock, and revert at 24 hours and one minute, nor an invitation to edit-war at a little slower pace. Repeated reverts are disruptive, that's why we have talk pages. The canvassing, though, I'm far more concerned about, given the previous sanctions for it, and especially given the disregard for an explicit warning about doing it again. It is a little beyond my imaginings that an editor who has edited on Wikipedia since 2010, especially in a contentious area, is not aware of the standard mechanisms for dispute resolution. I would tend to agree with the 3-month ban from the area.
I am concerned that a ban from contacting other editors regarding article talk page discussions altogether is beyond the scope of discretionary sanctions currently allowed under WP:ARBPIA, as that would cover a huge number of articles outside the discretionary sanctions area. I would, however, support an indefinite ban of Lazyfoxx making direct solicitations for any other particular editor(s) to participate in a discussion on any article or topic related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. This would not prohibit the use of normal dispute resolution such as RfC or 3O, where no particular editor is solicited to participate.
In closing, Lazyfoxx, if a temporary topic ban is ultimately to be the case, I would strongly advise you to use that time to gain experience editing in a calmer area. The Palestine-Israel topics are often the subject of extremely bitter fights (hence the reason for these sanctions in the first place) and are difficult to deal with even for very experienced editors. Some more experiences with how policy applies in practice, not just reading its letter, would be very beneficial to you, and that experience will be gained much less painfully in an area that's not so hot and contentious. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Point taken; concur an indef ban on contacting other editors in the ARBPIA area more appropriate. KillerChihuahua 06:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough[edit]

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) is blocked for two months for violating the restriction requiring him to edit Wikipedia only completely manually – that is, by typing text into the edit window – as explained and agreed to by Rich Farmbrough here.  Sandstein  21:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Rich Farmbrough[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Fram (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough#Rich Farmbrough prohibited from using automation
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [68] (16 January 2013):

This edits has serious problems, and the only expanation for these errors that I can reasonably think of is that Rich Farmbrough ran a script across a number of sources, and dumped the result in the article. While this is only one page, it is still using automated editing, and a return to the problems that caused the restriction in the first place.

  • The entries for Assam are completely wrong, probably because the pdf used ([69]) starts at 1, goes to 24, and then starts again at 1 (which are details of number 24), to continue after 96 again with 25. A human wouldn't have much problems with this, but a script or bot can't handle this and creates lists like the one we have gotten here.
  • The entries for Chattisgarh are botched at entry 26, which has a subset in the original pdf [70], which causes the script to go all haywire here.

Less serious contentwise, but typical of the use (and lack of control) of a script are the following issues:

  • When there are multiple entries (column one) or multiple designations (column three), a "return" is only addad after the first one, not noticing that more than two entries are possible. See e.g. Andra Pradesh 1 or 26 for examples of the first, and Andra Pradesh 15, 23 or 26 for examples of the second (layout problem)
  • Strange entries in column 2. See e.g. the first entry for Assam (with the thrice repeated " ,,,"Andhra Pradesh "), or the wrong ordering of Bihar, where 124 b and 124 a are placed before 1 - 2 - 3..., or the first entry for Chattisgarh; again something a script botches but a human hasn't any problem with.

I have stopped checking in detail after Chattisgarh, skimming the rest of the very long page seems to show similar errors all the way down.

The systematic and stupid nature of the errors clearly shows that this is not something caused by manual editing, but by automated editing and a lack of manual checks afterwards (which was the reason for the original restriction).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I raised this issue at User talk:Rich Farmbrough#Edit that appears to be automated, hoping that another convincing explanation would be offered and that a needless AE discussion could be avoided. While a reply was swiftly given, it doesn't seem very convincing to me, claiming that the errors were caused by doing it manually (how this would explain the loss of entries in the exact same manner from both the Assam source and the Chandigarh source is not made clear, nor why other errors are made in such a systematical way either).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Replies to Rich Farmbroughs initlal statement: I made this post originally directly beneath Rich Farmbrough's undated statement, but apparently this doesn't belong there and has been removed by Rich Farmbrough (not clear where he found the instructions to do this, but never mind). So I'll repeat my questions realting to his original statement here:

How do you explain the many missing entries? The strange note numbers like ",,,"Andhra Pradesh " ,,,"Andhra Pradesh " ,,,"Andhra Pradesh " 1" (at the first Assam entry), or the one at Rajasthan 26? The duplicate entry for Uttaranchal (1)? All caused by whatever spreadsheet you used? Fram (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

@Kumioko: I have enough examples of errors created by Rich Farmbrough (directly or through his bots) which remained in the articles for months before I eventually cleaned them up to know that the "someone else will notice it if it is really a problem" mantra is false. It was also clear from the ArbCom case that comparing his number of edits with his number of errors was a false comparison, since often the edits had little or no benefit, but the errors were a lot more serious. Your claim that "Rich was actively working on the list at the time of the complaint and said that on the talk page." is a bit deceiving (his comments indicate that he had uploaded the full list and that what remained to be done was matching the lists with articles and so on; not going back to the sources he used to see whether his work was actually correct; and he had stopped working on it and moved on to othet articles, I wasn't interrupting him in the middle of edits on it) and completely misses the point; he used automation, and it caused clear and serious errors. This is what this discussion is about. If you want to rehash the whole ArbCom case, or discuss my edits, including ones that haven't got anything to do with this situation at all, then there are other venues you can use; let's stick to what is directly relevant here please. Fram (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: for years, you created tons of errors by mass creations and automated editing. At first, I hoped that by things would improve when you became aware of this, but when things didn't improve, you got two community imposed editing restrictions. When that didn't solve all problems and it was obvious that people still needed to check your edits for repeated or serious errors (and some other problems with your editing and admin tool use besides), the Arbcom case resulted in yet another restriction. This means that, if you followed the restriction, the need to check your edits and point out your errors would be over. However, it is quite obvious that even those restrictions aren't sufficient. When you didn't have restrictions, I was quite willing to give you the chance to correct things, but you didn't. Now, you have lost that chance, and are limited to no automated editing. Not "automated editing with Fram finding errors and me correcting them", "no automated editing at all". You violated that, you caused serious errors while doing it, so no, I am no longer intersted in "but I cleaned up afterwards", we are long past that stage now. Fram (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough 2: concerning your defense of the actual edit: it was a systematic edit: everytime you encountered a "strange" entry in the pdfs, your script screwed up. Whether it was subentries, entries with an empty last column, entries with incorrect numbering in the original: your errors can be directly traced back to how the source looked. It had nothing to do with "empty csvs" or any other manual manipulation on your side, no matter what you claim. You used a script, and didn't check this. You claim to have worked very hard on this, but even a cursory check would have shown these problems. But, as usual, why would you do a manual check when you can have scripts do the work for you? Fram (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

@Kumioko, regarding his errors and the fixes: "Many of the ones he didn't was because he was prevented from doing so because of this sanction or the long discussions which distracted much of his time." Bullshit. He made these errors, corrected his script halfway through, and continued to run the improved script without even bothering to go back and correct the old ones. I corrected them two months later manually, nothing prevented him from doing the same. I have noted some errors he made after the Arbcom case, he corrected one, I corrected the other, he has since made the exact same error at least five times more (probably "manually", right...). Despite the claims always made, no one else cleans those, not Rich Farmbrough, not one of his defenders. He just cntinues doing what he always did, only more sneaky and (thankfully) more slowly, but I fail to see any improvement, any reason to believe his fanciful explanations, or any reason to have any more patience with this (or with your wilder and wilder tales you spread about me). He has restrictions, he doesn't care to follow them, then I don't care about the consequences for him. The consequences for Wikipedia are minimal though, only a few people actually notice that these thousands of edits are no longer made, and even fewer miss them. Fram (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Rich Farmbrough[edit]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough[edit]

This is a huge table that has taken a month to prepare, and as well as being part of a significant article in it's own right, is important for defusing conflict, as can be seen on the talk page. The data used was prepared off-line on a spreadsheet, and cut and pasted into the article. Because I wanted the data sorted (though the table provides this functionality) and certain parts were not in the order I wanted I used the spreadsheet's sort function - which did not sort exactly as wanted. There were also a few minor formatting issues relating to empty columns. These issues were fairly easy to fix, taking about two or three hours compared with the considerable effort to build the table. Note that I described the table on the talk page as a "first cut", the sources being in conflicting formats, and the exact use of the data also under discussion.

While using a spreadsheet may contravene the letter of the arbcom ruling, I think that the encyclopaedia benefits from this article, at least until it can be decided whether it should be split into sub-articles. (I would have created sub articles in the first place, but need consensus to emerge before I do that.) OBCs are a topic of vital interest to India and her 350 million English users, and we have never had a good coverage of the basic information before.

@Sir Fozzie: yes, so I cant move one sentence after the next. I can't paste in the details of a citation. I can't pretty much do anything - including following the process for requesting an amendment or clarification. Effectively I am blocked from editing, except that no one thinks that the sanction is important enough to implement. Well almost no one. Well I have hardly edited since the initial sanctions, so they have been successful, I guess, in saving the encyclopaedia from some possible improvement. And indeed I was blocked for a month for correcting two spelling errors, which is a triumph for process over product.

@CBM, on the contrary, Fram is damaging the encyclopaedia by being confrontational instead of cooperative. And indeed you misread Kumioko's comment, it is the behaviour of those who think that "tattling" is a valid strategy to reach their goals that is in question. Similarly those who edit war to their own ends should also be careful where they cast aspersions.

@Killer Chihuahua, not having kept every version of the spreadsheets since on or before 15 December I can't definitively track this down, but it seems to be related to saving some almost empty lines as CSV, before I finished the Andra Pradesh section, the same issue occurred with about five states - had it been a systematic error it would have been with all the states or none, there is nothing I can see that makes those five states special. Presumably the reimport parameters munged them. Anyway it's an easy fix.

I am however a little puzzled, Fram comments "I am not discussing the cleanup you did after I found the problems and raised the issue here. I am discussing your initial edit only."[72] Yet at the Arbitration case, he played a different tune saying "No one expects error-free editing, such a thing isn't possible. " and that the problem was that "he expects other people to clean up his problems." - a claim he has made for years, yet when asked "Do you think there are known errors on the English Wikipedia created by me, that I have not yet fixed? If so please list them for future reference, with approximate dates." he not only refused to answer but edit warred to remove the section I had created for him to answer, concealing his lack of cooperation.

@Sandstein Whether there is a technical breach or not, you are not required to block, no administrator is required to do perform any act. You may block me for a year if you choose to do so, and if you think that it is the right thing to do, you should do it. Nonetheless you can be sure that many will question the utility of such an action, and not without cause. It is fairly evident that this edit has not caused any problems, and indeed it is just for such cases of frivolous abuse of process that WP:IAR can be used.

@All The key question at AE is: Do we use discretion, or are we mindless automated drones of Arb Com?

  • For those that believe the former I have presented my case, and so to some extent, has the community, admins may individually or collectively act according to conscience.
  • For those that want to follow process then this request for enforcement fails, because it cites a different restriction to the one introduced by Sirfozzie, which sanctions automation on Wikipedia, not on my desktop.

Comments by SirFozzie[edit]

As one of the people who voted on the restriction, I'm likely too involved to adjucate fairly, but I'd just like to point out for the record that part of his restrictions include the following line:

to make only completely manual edits (ie by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window);

which is confirmed in the section "The Way Forward.." here. SirFozzie (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Kumioko[edit]

I also admit I am a bit involved and I have been a vocal critic of this case. I think this complaint is a waste of time. We are looking for reasons to ban Rich plain and simple. Lets look for reasons to keep him editing. The pedia has been punished enough with his banishment I for one am glad to see he is at least editing and didn't just give up on the communities bullshit and walk away completely. I think Fram is too involved and needs to step away, even if that means though enforcement on the part of Arbcom. I'm tired of Fram being the only one to be the tattle tale in these cases and bad judgement calls like submitting hundreds of WikiProject categories for speedy deletion. These things are happening frequently and its time someone told Fram to knock it off rather than encourage his destructive behavior. If Rich's editing is that much of a problem someone else can and will bring it up.Kumioko (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

@CBM. First let me apologize upfront. This is not going to be very nice, but it needs to be said. Next I want to clarify something. These edits were to a rather obscure topic and there is absolutely no way that Fram just stumbled onto it. He would have had to follow Rich's edits in order to see this. Additionally, Rich was actively working on the list at the time of the complaint and said that on the talk page. When Fram brought up the errors in the article Rich quickly went and fixed them. So your absolutely right, this isn't a playground and as far as I know we are all adults so it is truly bizarre and unfortunate when members of our community stoop to the childish behavior of being a tattle tail. But that is precisely what is occurring here. To tell you the truth there is another annoying childhood social characteristic at play here too and you know what that is? Bullying! I realize that you and Fram have struggled with the notion that Rich's edits are wanted, but some of us believe they are and occassional errors aside the pedia is suffering at the loss. Tens of thousands of edits aren't being made every single month since this sanction was put in place. Not many, not hundreds, not even thousands, Tens of thousands! So for what amounts to less than a 1% error rate we sanctioned a highly skilled and productive editor and administrator to not use automation and stripped their admin rights. Its sad and it makes me shake my head. Rich has mostly followed that. He is not using AWB, he is not using twinkle, scripts or bots. He admitted to using Excel. So now, we are here because a user who is not allowed to use "automation" used excel to sort a table, then another user who is heavily involved ran and told on him to the Arbcom. Petty, really really petty. I also take exception to the argument that Fram is just trying to protect the pedia from damage. I do not assume to know what motives Fram has. But from my perspective damage to the pedia is not among them. Damage to the pedia was already done with this sanction. Far more than could ever be produced from Rich's use of Excel. The damage was done by you and Fram and Arbcom's knee jerk decision to sanction him. So that damage has already been done by you and Fram. Additional damage is done in your continued attacks on members of the community and the stalking of edits, bullying and tattling about petty issues that frankly do not mean anything to anyone...except the 2 of you. Now I haev been here for a long, long time, longer even than you CBM and I know from expereince and from the 400, 000+ edits I haev done that our community of Wikipedians has no problem whatsoever in complaining about problems. So if Rich's edits really were that much of a problem, why is it that you and Fram are always the ones who are there to complain? I am going to stop short of stating why I think this is however I find this activity and conduct both suspect and disappoining of 2 members of the community who are admins and who are supposed to be, trusted. I do not trust either of you (Just to clarify I am quite ok with knowing that neither of you trusts me either). Kumioko (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
@Leaky Cauldron. You are correct Fram is familiar with the case but so am I and so are several other members of the community. I can tell you though as I mentioned above that there are quite a few members of the community (a lot really) who do not really care about popularity. They have absolutely no problems telling when someone has, and excuse the metaphore, F'ed up. So to say that people aren't stepping up because they don't wish to seem unpopular isn't exactly true. Its more like most either don't agree with the sanctions in the first place or they don't find that this is a violation or worth the time. I also frankly think that Fram's actions need to be seriously reviewed by the Arbcom (possibly CBM's as well). Kumioko (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
@Fram, I'm not going to play the he said she said game with you. Yes there were errors, Rich fixed some and some he didn't. Many of the ones he didn't was because he was prevented from doing so because of this sanction or the long discussions which distracted much of his time. I also want to clarify that some of the "errors" you point to were not errors, they were a difference of opinion about how things should be and what constituted a minor edit. It could be argued (and it has been ad nauseum) that some are not needed. I think personally even minor edits incrementally improve the articles, you and CBM do not and will forcably argue, block and prevent any editors from doing these things that are against your personal beleifs regardless of how petty and stupid the argument is. Some have had merit, many did not. The bottom line is in this particular discussion though is that Excel is not automation. Excel is an application yes, but not automation. If Excel is included as automation then so is using the computer to access Wikipedia, so is using an internet browser to access Wikipedia, so is using the 4 tildes to sign his signature (better to make him type the whole thing out right, and then accuse him of errors because the UTC is wrong), or use the Wiki software to send him an Email and then go to arbcom and say he's using automation because that doesn't fall under the criteria of "Clicking the edit" link. This whole submission of Rich violation his automationo ban is absurd and should be treated as such! Kumioko (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
@CBM, the diffs you gave do not show anything. They do not show Rich used automation. They show he made edits. More petty diffs to try and get him banned from the site. Kumioko (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
@Sandstein. A one year block is completely absurd! I am not an administrator but as a longterm editor I find your interest in blocking Rich for a year over this pettyness excessive. I highly recommend giving more time for comments or I will be forced to reopen a case appealing it wasting even more of everyones time. Kumioko (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
@Fram, your really a piece of work dude you know that. You have spent more time in arbitration discussions to burn other editors than some of the arbitrators have. I find it shocking that you have the gall to complain about Rich's problems when you create unreferenced biographical articles like this, this and others. You submit more than 300 WikiProject categories for deletion here showing you don't understand the purpose of WikiProject categorization and then go on to create a discussion here to delete the majority of the A-Class quality assessments because they are empty. And that's only in the last week, and you have the gall to call Rich a bad editor because he made mistakes on his edits. Part of the reason Rich made some of those mistakes is because he did so many edits. If he did 20 edits no one would care, but because he and his bots did something like 4 million edits, some mistakes are going to occur. But instead you use the Arbcom to get editors you don't like banned by rummaging through their edits to find something that can be used against them and then say that you don't care what happens to them. You should have the admin tools taken away and you should get blocked for a month just for continuing to waste Arbcom's time. But instead they'll block Rich for a year or permanently and they'll give you a pat on the back and an attaboy and see you back here in a week. But I see through your petty shallow games. Eventually they'll catch on too. Also, you are not the only one that was fixing edits, I fixed plenty too. I have about 4 times the number of edits you do and I fixed mistakes from Rich and his bots too. But I never for a second thought he should be blocked from editing, stripped of his admin rights and banned from the pedia. I am so pissed and disgusted with this place, process and you that I don't even care if I get blocked for telling you what a piece of trash you are. Its editors like you that will destroy this project. Kumioko (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
@ the Admins trying to justify a one year block. We are not a bunch of mindless Zombies and we can make the decision to block or not to block based on the merits of the case. We also have the ability to decide ow long that block should be if necessary at all. Not on trying to interpret a badly worded and badly decided Arbcom case. Its no secret I have thought the case was bad from the beginning and its no secret I have voiced my concerns with the Arbcom in general. But that doesn't matter here and I am not trying to retry this case. What I am trying to say is that determining the use of excel as automation is stupid and we should not treat it as such. If Arbcom wants to take action let them do it.
@Ken, I posted a request for additional comments in 2 places, the Village pump and AN because very few have this AE page on their watch list. Those that do, tend to lean towards the extreme end of the punishment spectrum. That was it and it was generically worded and I was prepared to accept whatever comments came out of that. So please do not imply that I was leaving messages all of the Wiki pleading for help because I was not doing that. Kumioko (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
@The Hand that feeds. Rich made a bad edit, not a big deal. It happens here all the time. Rich fixed that edit when it was brought up, that happens here some of the time. Rich is now facing a one year block because he used excel to sort a table and some are trying to argue that using excel is automation; even under an Arbcom sanction, that is unprecedented and unhelpful. Some are trying to argue that Rich new better. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't but even some of the members of Arbcom had differing views of what constituted automation. As some have suggested we are not here to contradict Arbcom. That may also be true but its also not up to us to try and decipher a badly worded and vague sanction either. If they wrote a clearer sanction then we wouldn't even be able to argue the point. As it is, they wrote it in such a vague way that nearly anything could be argued as automation. This is unacceptable and we as editors have no obligation to act on gray areas that are open to interpretation. Kumioko (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Note - I posted a request for additional comments to this discussion on AN and Village pump policy. Let's see if we can get more than 5 editors comments on this case. Most editors don't watch this page. Kumioko (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by CBM[edit]

This is not a playground; the term "tattle" is bizarre in this context. On Wikipedia, Rich Farmbrough is treated as an adult and has responsibility for his edits. If he is not willing to abide by the restrictions, he should explicitly state so, and voluntarily stop editing. I think it would be better for the project if he remains and follows his restrictions. This is not the only violation I have seen in the past two weeks. Fram is limiting the damage that can be done to the encyclopedia by raising violations while they can still be fixed easily, rather than waiting for more severe problems to occur that might be more disruptive and less simple to resolve. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

@KillerChihuahua: I needed a small amount of time to gather the links here. The relevant facts seem to be that Rich Farmbrough has stated above

The data used was prepared off-line on a speadsheet, and cut and pasted into the article. Because I wanted the data sorted (though the table provides this functionality) and certain parts were not in the order I wanted I used the spreadsheet's sort function - which did not sort exactly as wanted.

while his arbitration case includes a remedy [73]

to avoid making automated edits to pages offline for the purpose of pasting them into a normal browser for posting;

Separately, the same motion has a remedy

to refrain from edits adjusting capitalisation of templates (where the current capitalisation is functional) or whitespace and similar as these can create the appearance of automation.

while Rich Farmbrough has recently made edits including [74] [75] [76] [77] which violate that arbitration remedy as well as his community editing restrictions. Rich Farmbrough has made at least 30 edits of this sort since the beginning of 2013.

I will have limited access to the internet beginning this afternoon, but I will make an effort to respond within 24 hours to any further questions posted by clerks.— Carl (CBM · talk) 16:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

@Sandstein: FWIW I think one year is excessive. The last block was two weeks so one month woulld be a more reasonable progression in my opinion. Rich Farmbrough can in principle appeal the remedies again in six months, so a block longer than that would be less useful. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Leaky caldron[edit]

Not for the first time, Fram's motives are being called into question. He is familiar with the (many) background cases, knowledgeable in the technicalities of the possible infraction and willing to bring matters to attention when others might not wish to appear unpopular. Fram's motives are not subject to Arbcom enforcement - let's leave the personality out of it. Leaky Caldron 13:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Orlady[edit]

Although his edits to List of Other Backward Classes appear to violate the letter of Rich Farmbrough's restriction, I don't see them as violating the intent of that restriction because they were focused on a single article page, rather than the automated edits to many pages that I understand to have been the focus of the Arbcom case. Furthermore, I am grateful that Rich Farmbrough has taken up the editing of this particular list-article. This list is inherently problematic, as it relates to the very touchy subject of caste in India. The list was severely incomplete before he started editing it. Also, due to a combination of India's multiple languages, transliteration quirks, and definitional questions, there apparently can be complex issues in determining whether a wikilinks to an article about a specific group actually points to the right group. I opened an AfD in which I proposed that the article (which at the time was far more deficient) be userfied until various deficiencies had been addressed. The community in its infinite wisdom decided to keep that page in article space based on a promise of fixing the issues, but shortly after that, the creator of the page got topic-restricted from the topic of Indian caste, so it wasn't obvious that the fixes were going to happen. Rich Farmbrough's edits have resulted in an enormous improvement to the page; if there are errors in his work due to the way he used automated tools, I have confidence that he will endeavor to correct those errors. If there is still concern about the current condition of that page, I suggest that he be allowed to move it to user space and work on it there (including automated editing) until all glitches have been cleared up. (And when he's done, there are similar needs regarding List of Scheduled Castes that he might be able to address in a similar fashion.) Accordingly, I suggest that this particular "violation" should be ignored/excused. --Orlady (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

@Sandstein: In view of the fact that these edits are helping to resolve a problem, not create one, a block is not helpful, and a one-year block is seriously excessive. --Orlady (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Nick-D[edit]

Given that ArbCom has voted to implement very explicit 'bright line'-type restrictions here, Fram has demonstrated what appears to be a breach of the restriction against automation and Rich has admitted violating the restriction on offline editing (despite a previous sanction), Sandstein's analysis and proposed action looks (somewhat regretfully) appropriate to me, especially as Rich has been pushing against his restrictions for the last few months so he's obviously (or at least should be) well aware of their content and how they work in practice and I don't think that this breach should be considered accidental. Nick-D (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by RolandR[edit]

I have no involvement in this matter, have never come across this before, and am ignorant of the background. Irrespective of that, I am simply astonished by the suggestion that using Excel offline is equivalent to automation. You might just as well argue that use of a spell-checker is forbidden, since that automatically replaces text and the editor will not have entered everything manually. RolandR (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Arthur Rubin[edit]

I do have previous involvement with Rich, in that he appeared to have had damgaed some templates I was trying to clarify. However, I think Sandstein may be misinterpreting ArbComm, and I think one year is excessive. If, hypothetically, a clearer, if more restrictive, sanction on Rich could be crafted, that, together with a one month block, would be reasonable. If not, probably a two to three month block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Irate comment by Wnt[edit]

You are saying that Rich Framborough is required "to make only completely manual edits (ie by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window);" Does that mean that if he wants to add the URL for a reference, he has to type it in by hand? To quote text, he has to retype it? No. I would agree with RolandR, Arthur Rubin, etc. that this is absurd. I say opening an edit window and pressing control-V is a "completely manual edit" - that is, provided he is allowed to use a computer to make it! I've never run a bot, but I've used Excel to make edits in the past (just about any table for example) - and I never thought about reading the bot policy before doing so. Wnt (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by calm and composed Beyond My Ken[edit]

I believe several of the commenters above -- most probably attracted here by Kumioko's advertising this action in several forums in order to assist Rich Farmbrough -- have missed the point. If Rich had not been sanctioned in the manner indicated by ArbCom, the alternative would have been a full site ban. In that respect, ArbCom was remarkably lenient, in allowing him to continue to edit the site in exactly the way that hundred of editors -- such as myself -- do, by typing their edits into the edit box by hand. (The suggestion that the ArbCom sanction prohibited him from cutting-and-pasting a URL is ridiculous, a classic example of reductio ad absurdum, but not relevant in the real world.) That despite this extraordinary leniency, Rich has edited in a manner that is plainly a violation of those restrictions is a very strong indication that he is incapable of doing so. Rich is not unintelligent, so it can't be that he didn't understand the plain language of the sanction, it must be, instead, that he is incapable of controlling himself.

Given that clear and obvious meaning of the sanction, and given the admitted breaking of it by Rich, the admins here at AE really have no choice but to impose the block that ArbCom called for. If Rich believes this is unfair, or inappropriately imposed, he can file for an amendment with the Committee, although he would do so at some risk, because it is likely, in my opinion, that the committee would void the current sanction, and impose the full site-ban that they held off imposing at the time of the original case, since Rich has amply demonstrated that he is incapable of following the instructions of the committee. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

@Colonel Warden: The opinions of other editors about the edit involved are irrelevant. The only criteria which is pertinent to this situation is the sanction imposed by ArbCom. If you have a diff which shows that ArbCom was OK with an automated edit by Rich as long as it was "positive" or "beneficial" or "approved by other editors" you should cite it -- but you cannot, because no such loophole exists. The sanction imposed was clear and absolute -- no non-manual edits. Given that, your comment below is completely irrelevant to this discussion, especially considering that the entire point of having an Arbitration Committee is to be the the last resort and final determiner. You (and others above) appear to want to re-litigate the case and second-guess ArbCom's decision. That's not what AE is for. If you want a re-consideration, file for an Amendment, although it is likely you'll be turned down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Colonel Warden[edit]

The edit which is complained of here was well-advertised in advance on the article's talk page by this post on 15 Dec 2012. The method of working was indicated by reference to "1200 rows". The article was, at that time at AFD where this activity was approvingly reported by another editor who is familiar with the chore of working upon this topic: "It looks like Rich Farmbrough is trying to do this either off-wiki or at least not in mainspace. Way to go...". The AFD was closed by an administrator as "KEEP with a promise of FIXING the issues noted". As the list was then a short stub, it seems reasonable to suppose that significant expansion was what was promised. The original author of the list was forbidden to work upon the topic area and so the involved editors seem to have left it to Rich to labour away. After a month's work, the additional material which had been prepared offsite was then added to the article in the edit in question. The size of this material (350K) was such that copy typing by hand would have been absurdly inefficient and likely to introduce significant error due to typing mistakes. Cut/paste is clearly the only sensible way of doing this.

The edit which introduced this material was again well-advertised upon the article's talk page and described as a "First cut" and so, by implication, inviting review. The edit was soon reviewed by another editor and they praised it about 5 hours later: "Glad to see this progress. The list is comprehensive and thoroughly sourced. Thanks for all your work, Rich Farmbrough!". This then seems to have been delivering upon the promise.

The work done in this case seems to have been significant and the way in which it was done was commendably open and supported by consensus. If an involved editor did not care for the large addition then it would have been easy to revert because its nature was clear and well explained. If, by contrast, the material had been added as a myriad small edits then it would have been more difficult to understand and manage this major addition.

To block Rich for this action would be perverse - overzealous enforcement which we might liken to Javert, as one topical example. A better remedy would be to give Rich some means of formally registering his plans to make such a bold edit somewhere so that technical objections can be raised beforehand, rather than afterwards.Warden (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: The issue here is to understand what has happened and to decide what reaction, if any, is appropriate. The edit which has been made seems to be a done deal. Blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punishment. What is now to be prevented? My proposition is that Rich record his plans in some formal manner so that objections can be raised before significant effort is invested rather than afterwards. Warden (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by LindsayH[edit]

I was aware of the restrictions on Rich Farmbrough, and of the antagonism between him and certain other editors; i have no desire to comment on that, nor on anything except to express astonishment, as some other Comment-makers have, at the implication that using a programme off-line to mould an edit could be called automation. I have used OpenOffice to search for and replace multiple errors in some articles; does that mean i ought to have got permission to use a bot? I think that someone might be leaning over backwards to find Rich out of compliance with his restrictions. Cheers, LindsayHello 10:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Andy Mabbett[edit]

The ridiculousness of this proposal and its tissue-thin justification beggars belief. Try to imagine how it would be reported to outsiders. Close with no sanction, ASAP. Also, what LindsayH said. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by EdChem[edit]

  1. Then-Arbitrator Elen of the Roads commented at the AfD shortly after the comment indicating Rich F's intentions and was advised of the 1200 rows. Though it's not definitive proof, certainly nothing in her comments suggests she saw any potential violation of ArbCom sanctions as being proposed.
  2. I find Sandstein's analysis deeply troubling, for the following reason: An issue that came up last year was ArbCom potentially substituting their own views for the discretion provided to administrators at AE. As I recall, one new arbitrator was elected partly to help bring greater appreciation of the views of AE admins on their discretion to ArbCom. Yet, Sandstein's analysis argues that AE admins have no discretion in this case. He argues that the enforcement provision ("may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year") means that a two week block must be followed by a block over a month in length, and in this case by a one year block . Yet, nothing in this provision mandates that a second block must be anything other than "increased". Sandstein's argument rests on the ArbCom statement that "If Rich Farmbrough breaches the automation prohibition again, notwithstanding the standard enforcement provisions, he will likely be site-banned indefinitely with at least twelve months elapsing from the date of the site-ban before he may request the Committee reconsider." However, this statement describes what ArbCom would likely do, it certainly does not mandate that AE admins lack discretion to use their good judgment and must jump from two weeks to a year for block length. I voted in the election in favour of AE admins discretion being respected (within reason), but if Sandstein's analysis is followed then I would argue that AE admins have failed to exercise discretion or judgment and ArbCom should step in because the AE page has failed to act appropriately.
  3. These comments are made in the context of recognising that the idea that using Excel is prohibited automation is ridiculous. I recognise SirFozzie has quoted the "typing" restriction but the literal interpretation of that is that including a cut-and-paste URL for a reference, or a word processed spell check, or a direct quote from a source, are all prohibited. I contend that sensible judgment requires interpretation of the restriction reasonably rather than literally because the reasonable (and arguably literal) interpretation of automation does not cover the introduction of a single large table to a single page. The way in which the edit was made, with approval for improvement at AfD and with notification at the talk page, to me provided ample opportunity for objections to be raised and also showed a collegial and collaborative approach by Rich F.
  4. As an entirely uninvolved editor, I conclude that a block would be punitive and a year-long block would be over-reaction on a grand scale. AE consensus is supposed to be formed amongst uninvolved editors, not just admins, and it is clear to me that consensus for sanctions is lacking at this time.

EdChem (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment from NE Ent[edit]

The decision was absurd -- a review of noticeboard discussion shows the arbitrators themselves did not agree on what it meant after it passed, with one stating that use of spell check would be a violation! Nonetheless as Sandstein & the lethal small dog have pointed out, it's not AE's job to address that. RF has over at least the past two years [78] demonstrated a chronic cluelessness about the collaborative nature of Wikipedia with repeated pushing the envelope edits. Therefore a sanction is appropriate. Please do note, however, that AE does have leeway here -- the motion cleary says he will likely be site-banned... (emphasis mine). "Likely" is a fine weasel word which allows this board leeway to act with compassion and optimism that a lesser sanction could work. Do the two month block and let's all hope for a brighter future. NE Ent 15:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved BorisG[edit]

Since the disruption caused by this edit was minimal, admins should use their discretion, common sense and WP:IAR, and close without any sanction. If they can't agree on this simple thing then ask ArbCom to clarify. - BorisG (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved HandThatFeeds[edit]

As a point of order: per Fram's analysis and Rich's response, it is clear that this was not simply an "edit offline, copy & paste." Rather, Excel's sorting function was used to re-organize said data before pasting it into WP.
The problem being that Rich did not examine the sort to make sure it worked properly. Rich's use of automation without bothering to check his work is exactly what brought about the ArbCom result in the first place.
Regardless of the fact that this was a "minor" automation, it does display that Rich still refuses to A) avoid any automation of his edits and B) has not learned he must double-check the results of said automation before applying it to the Wikipedia article. That is exactly what the previous ArbCom restriction was put in place to stop. It obviously has not. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning Rich Farmbrough[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Waiting to hear Rich's response regarding the question of the repeated "Andhra Pradesh " entries. Also note to Leaky Caldron: Please read the big pink box at the top, and you will find that motives are indeed subject to AE: vexatious requests can be sanctioned, even on a first offense. I am not stating that this is the case in this instance; merely correcting your misunderstanding about whether motives are subject to AE. KillerChihuahua 13:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Rich Farmbrough writes about the edit at issue that "the data used was prepared off-line on a speadsheet, and cut and pasted into the article." The Arbitration Committee's restriction concerning his editing, as modified by the motion of 6 June 2012, provides that "Rich Farmbrough is directed ... to make only completely manual edits (ie by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window)". It is therefore established that Rich Farmbrough has violated the restriction at issue.

    This requires us to consider what sanction is appropriate. The enforcement provision directs that he "may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year". The initial block of (up to) one month was already made by the Committee pursuant to the abovementioned motion of 6 June 2012. Consequently, we must now consider a block ranging between one month and one year in duration. In determining the appropriate block duration, we must consider that clause C(iv) of the motion of 6 June 2012 provides that "If Rich Farmbrough breaches the automation prohibition again, notwithstanding the standard enforcement provisions, he will likely be site-banned indefinitely with at least twelve months elapsing from the date of the site-ban before he may request the Committee reconsider." This indicates that the Committee was of the opinion that the appropriate sanction for any subsequent violation of the sanction at issue is at least one year of no editing. It follows that the appropriate duration of the enforcement block we must now make is the maximum permitted, i.e., one year. This is of course without prejudice to any site ban, as discussed in the same clause of the abovementioned motion, that the Committee may also decide to impose. But the wording of that clause does not delegate the authority to impose such a site ban to administrators.

    For these reasons, if there are no objections by other administrators, I intend to close this enforcement request with a one-year block.

    The various comments arguing that the decision that is to be enforced is wrong are beside the point: This is not the place to discuss the merits of arbitral decisions. The place to do so would be an amendment request, or the Committee's talk page.  Sandstein  20:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Several people argue that the sanction should not be enforced, or at any rate not with a lengthy block, because the edit was harmless or beneficial. That may well be so. However, in the context of enforcement, all that matters is that edits of this specific type by this specific editor have been determined by the body with the authority to do so – the Arbitration Committee – to be detrimental. That's the point of any ban on Wikipedia: it forbids all edits (or all of a certain type), no matter what the merits of any individual edit are – see WP:BAN. And I trust the collective judgment of the Arbitration Committee in determining the scope of bans like this... well, certainly not blindly, but much more than that of any individual editor who shows up here. So, please address any objections against the scope of the ban, or against the length of the sanctions contemplated, to the Committee members who wrote that ban.  Sandstein  23:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • To those commenting on the fairness (or lack thereof) of any sanctions imposed: That's not up to us here. AE determines if ArbCom sanctions have or have not been breached, and if they have, what remedies to apply. That's it. ArbCom has the benefit of evidence from any user who wants to submit it and weeks worth of deliberation to craft appropriate remedies, and we're not going to unilaterally overturn them on the basis of a shouting match on this thread. If you think they did their job poorly, go take it up with them, as they're the only ones who can reverse or amend it (aside, nominally, from Jimbo or the WMF, but that's happened rarely in the case of Jimbo and to my knowledge never in the case of WMF).
  • That being said: Today, the sanction is in place. It is quite clear: "To avoid future breaches of whatever nature, Rich Farmbrough is avoid making automated edits to pages offline for the purpose of pasting them into a normal browser for posting; to make only completely manual edits (ie by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window)....If Rich Farmbrough breaches the automation prohibition again, notwithstanding the standard enforcement provisions, he will likely be site-banned indefinitely with at least twelve months elapsing from the date of the site-ban before he may request the Committee reconsider....By adopting this motion, the Committee is extending considerable good faith to Rich Farmbrough, despite the aggravating factors, and notes he has unconditionally accepted provisions to this effect." Rich has clearly stated that in this case his edit was not manual, and was instead prepared offline with the use of automated spreadsheet functions for the purpose of pasting in. This is a clear violation of very unequivocal restrictions after being offered an absolute last chance. Further, Rich did not have to use a spreadsheet here, even if the edit was complex, as there was no restriction placed on the use of a userspace sandbox to prepare a complex edit. I therefore have to concur with Sandstein's analysis. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It seems we have reasonable disagreement here as to whether the edits in question violated the restriction. As such, I would suggest that we request clarification from ArbCom as to whether these edits violate the ban. Unless there's well-founded objection or someone else does it first, I'll file the request tomorrow. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This is the definition of automation as provided in the arbcom decision:
An automation tool is a technology designed to facilitate making multiple similar edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually. Common automation tools include bots (independently running processes that modify Wikipedia content in a fully or partially automated fashion), scripts (software components utilized to automate or semi-automate certain types of editing), and various other technologies.
The phrase key, which is the essence of the word "automation", is "to facilitate making multiple similar edits". It is also clear from that case that abuse of bots and similar tools is what Rich was sanctioned for. It is very surprising to see once-off use of Excel to make a single table being judged to be a similar violation. Of course Excel could be used to automate a process of making multiple similar edits but has he not been accused of doing that. I conclude that he did not violate his ban on using automation tools. So it comes down to the clause "to make only completely manual edits (ie by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window)". When I click EDIT and then copy-paste a few sentences from an article I have open in another window, say to add a quotation, is that not a "completely manual" edit? Maybe, maybe not; surely a reasonable person could understand it either way. Why is the paste key less manual than the shift key? At the very least, we should consider that maybe Rich made a good-faith reasonable interpretation of his sanction even if we think his interpretation was wrong. I am in favor of closing this with a clear statement as to whether what he did is a violation or not. Zerotalk 03:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Ordinarily I would agree that copy-pasting text into the edit window could be interpreted to constitute manual (as opposed to automated) editing. But in this case the decision expressly allows only "typing changes into the editing window". "Typing" means entering characters one by one on the keyboard; an interpretation confirmed by the clause's description of such edits having to be "completely" manual. This particular restriction may initially appear arbitrary or meaningless, but in the context of the case it appears to be meant to prevent Rich Farmbrough from preparing automated edits outside of Wikipedia and then copy-pasting them into Wikipedia. It is therefore not so meaningless or nonsensical as to be unenforceable. Also considering that the sanction was imposed only in lieu of a full site ban, I don't think that the Committee meant to make allowances for "good-faith interpretations" of the sanction, particularly not in cases (such as this one) where such interpretations conflict with the clear wording of the sanction. I would therefore maintain what I said above that Rich Farmbrough has violated the sanction and should be blocked.  Sandstein  08:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It is nice to have help on this case, unlike the last one. My views: Excel falls under the "other technologies" listed. However, cut-and-paste within the edit window, to order words or sentences; or copy-paste of strings difficult to type accurately, for urls for references, is often considered part of "typing" just like the back-space key is - and it is not the same as writing something offline for loading to Wikipedia via a copy-paste into the edit window. This may at some point need clarification from ArbCom, but RF has transgressed with the use of the Excel spreadsheet for sorting, then copy-pasting into a Wikipedia edit window, which to me counts as writing something offline for copying into Wikipedia, so I don't see a need to bother ArbCom at this time. It violates that restriction as would Textpad or Notepad or any other offline editor. I'm concerned that RF was given an apparent green light as in the evidence presented by Col. Warden; however, one could argue that it is up to RF to remember what his sanctions are and abide by them. I think there has been an error made here, but disagree it rises to the level of needing a one year block. If I'm wrong, and there are further violations, we can always re-block again and for longer. But from one month to one year is a very harsh escalation, not warranted by what appears to be confusion (well documented in the arguments above) about what the ban entails. If there is a next time, then we can point to this case and say, It was made clear. I suggest a block of two months. KillerChihuahua 12:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
      • There is no ban on "writing something offline for copying into Wikipedia". Sorry, it just doesn't say that. Zerotalk 14:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Apologies, I miswrote - I meant to say processing, as in the "other technologies" . KillerChihuahua 01:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • And a note to those arguing that RF is an asset, and the level of error was too small to justify sanctions, etc: This is not Arbitration Appeal. This is Arbitration Enforcement. Please don't try to re-argue the case here; it just takes up screenspace and makes the admins here cranky. The only valid argument against sanctions here is "s/he didn't violate the terms set by Arbcom." Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua 13:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm OK with a two-month block too, on the basis that this doesn't prevent the Committee from imposing the one-year ban they contemplated in the sanction. As a general recommendation to the Committee, based on the non-admin discussion above, it seems that it might have been better to completely ban Rich Farmbrough to begin with (if indeed his conduct at the time was demed that problematic), rather than crafting (perhaps necessarily) complicated restrictions that provide ample opportunity for wiki-lawyering and re-arguing the case every time they are to be enforced.  Sandstein  14:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I still disagree. Excel does not fit the definition of an automation tool unless it is configured "to facilitate making multiple similar edits", which it wasn't. I don't agree that the restriction on off-line automation would be meaningless if it doesn't apply here. I think it makes perfect sense. Rich got into trouble for abuse of bots and the like. The plain meaning is that he must not circumvent the ban by copying a page to another place, applying his bots to them, and copying the result back. That's why it says "automated edits to pages offline" and it doesn't say anything about preparing new material offline. I still think a reasonable person could consider what Rich did to be within the terms of the sanctions. Zerotalk 14:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry Zero, I think its pretty clear from SirFozzie's comment linking to the agreement with Rich (ie how he avoided being site-banned), as well as Rich's own acceptance that Excell is a technical breach of the ruling that Rich's actions were not permissible under the terms of the RFAR ruling (the edits didn't conform to "the way forward"). I'd be on board with the 2 month block, per Sandstein above, on the basis that the ArbCom can level a harsher sanction if they see fit--Cailil talk 15:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, we've now had time to consider this. Four administrators are of the opinion that this is an enforceable violation of the Committee's sanction, and one is of the opposite opinion. I don't think that waiting for the result of a clarification request is necessary, as it appears unlikely that a majority of the Committee would come to a substantially different result than the substantial majority of uninvolved administrators here, and at any rate the Committee will have the opportunity to review the matter if it is seized with an appeal. Taking that into consideration – I'm not assessing consensus, because AE actions are unilateral – I'm blocking Rich Farmbrough for the duration of two months, as suggested by KillerChihuahua.  Sandstein  21:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)