Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive134

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

Contents

Galassi[edit]

I am marking this request as closed because it was archived without a result.  Sandstein  16:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Galassi[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Galassi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Standard_discretionary_sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. April 5
  2. April 6
  3. April 21: It tells "See relevant discussions..." here and here. First discussion was resumed by me on April 18. Second discussion was started by me on April 19.
  4. April 22, same discussions.
  5. 2009 (edit summary) - same accusation about another contributor, with a promise to report this to administrators, something that he actually did with me in two diffs above.
  6. April 29 - Galassi blames me of "aryanizing" Vladimir Vysotsky. He apparently refers to this my edit quickly reverted by him [1] and discussed here. But in fact, I only fixed a poorly written nationalistic POV phrase: "His father ... was a Jewish colonel in the [Soviet] army originally from Kiev." (see also my comments below). Aryanization is a Nazi racist ideology. What? @Galassi, do you really believe that I am a supporter of Nazi Master Race concept?
  7. April 29. Galassi continue totally unsubstantiated accusations that I "insinuate" "bloodthurstiness of Ilya Ehrenburg". No, I respect this writer. Yes, Agranov masterminded many Stalinist trials, as described in many books. The ethnicity of Agranov and Ehreburg is completely irrelevant. None of them is notable for their ethnicity. Bringing their ethnicity in discussion (as Galassi did during the previous AE and continue here) is an example of "The Plague".

These are unsubstantiated accusations of racist bias made on administrative page and talk pages of administrators. During the previous AE request Galassi was warned by Sandstein about making such accusations [2], but continued doing the same at talk pages of two other administrators and during this request. There are other problematic aspects of his editing, such as edit wars [3] and his recent topic ban violation on editing subjects related to Cossacks [4], but they are less important.

Here is an additional example: February 1 and January 5 reverts with accusations (edit summary) of "deliberate mistranslation/misrepresentation". This is hardly a deliberate misinterpretation [5].

The case falls under jurisdiction of WP:DIGWUREN because all these discussions are related to Ukrainian or Russian topics.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Diff 1 above. How on the Earth Galassi could interpret my edits here this way? I was doing exactly the opposite (see talk page here, for example). I tried to fix highly biased edits made by someone else who tried to paint this famous writer as a bloody monster by excessively citing his war time propaganda.

Diff 2 above ([6]). I would appreciate if Galassi explained what exactly "instances" he is talking about. There was none. Once, I had a conversation with Gallassi here, but I only asked him to provide sources, and that is what he did. But I still suspect this article does not comply with our WP:BLP rules. Yes, this writer wrote a satiric essay that was regarded by many as antisemitic, but he also published 10 books that were not considered antisemitic and received 12 literary awards. The respective article on ruwiki does not describe this writer at all as antisemitic. His work was highly prized by writers of Jewish ancestry, like Ludmila Ulitskaya and Mark Zakharov.

Diffs 3 and 4. It appears that Galassi believes that if someone (like me or several other editors) argue on a talk page against describing a person (Losev or whoever) as an antisemite, then such participants must be antisemites themselves. What? For example, if I argue that someone should not be described as a criminal in his biography page, does it qualify me as a criminal?

@Volunteer Marek. Do you really believe that making such accusations is fine? What if someone was telling this about you? As about the "coup de grace", I had very few interactions with Galassi and almost all of them appear in this request. I am not interested in inserting or removing any antisemitism pieces and therefore have very little overlap of interest with Galassi. I started editing a few such subjects only after accusations made by G. during previous AE request because I started thinking about this. However, after looking at interactions of Galassi with other people including myself, I am pretty much sure he should indeed be removed from this subject area for the sake of all contributors. This is not only his personal accusations, which have no grounds whatsoever in my case, but WP:DE, edit wars, refusal to get the point in discussions, and refusal to follow WP:NPOV (after talking with him here, I am sure he does not want to even understand the policy I tried to explain [7]).

  • Response (refuting accusations by Galassi).

Based on statement by Galassi, he means what he tells at talk pages of administrators. Actually, I expected that he will not make any comments or accept that he is wrong and apologize.

  1. Vysotsky. Galassi tells about this my edit [8] quickly reverted by Galassi [9]. As discussed here, I made it for three reason. First, according to WP:MOS, Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Second, it was unsourced. Third, the phrase I tried to fix was telling: "His father ... was a Jewish colonel in the army originally from Kiev." This is strange phrase. What army? White army? Soviet Army? There was no ethnicity-based brigades in Soviet Army or something like that. Describing someone in Soviet Army as "Jewish colonel" is a nationalistic POV. This my edit hardly demonstrates any inappropriate bias.
  2. More on alleged "aryanization". This is an extremely offensive accusation. The relevant policy on "ethnicity" is WP:MOS (Ethnicity or sexuality should not ..., see above). So, when I create biographies of Russian language poets of Jewish ancestry (for example, here or here), I usually define them in introduction as "Russian" (meaning the country and language; in these two cases the country could also be defined as "Soviet Union", no problem) and then tell about their Jewish ancestry, when appropriate. No one ever disputed this in biographies I created.
  3. I did not edit Shafarevich. Others did [10]. @Galassi, who you think [11] was an antisemite in this case? I did remove this from Lev Gumilev article. Curiously enough, that is when I agree with Russavia [12]. By reverting this my edit [13], Galassi makes a point that not only some people claim his theories were antisemitic (this is actually only a negligible minority; others criticize various scientific aspects his work), but the whole biography of Gumilev belongs to category "antisemitism". Sorry, but I do not think so [14].
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

User notified


Discussion concerning Galassi[edit]

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

Statement by Galassi[edit]

I believe that there is a type of antisemitic POV which does not involve making openly antisemitic edits, but rather removing the mentions of reliably sourced antisemitic aspects of cultural/historical fugures, such as Igor Shafarevich, Lev Gumilev and Alexei Losev, essentially whitewashing them. Another insidious type of this POV involves "aryanization" of individuals of mixed ancestry. Such was My Best Wishes' unsummarized removal of such information from the article of Vladimir Vysotsky (a Russian national hero). (diffs forthcoming)--Galassi (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition to that My Best Wishes continues antisemitic POV-pushing by insinuating "bloodthurstiness" of Ilya Ehrenburg, a Jewish poet, and of Yakov Agranov, a Jewish NKVD official, in whose article My Best Wishes insinuates that Agranov masterminded massacres on his own volition, which contradict the accepted common knowledge of Stalinism (diffs forthcoming). Furthermore, My Best Wishes brought/brings me up on charges for the edits on which we had no interaction (especially the ones on Ukrainian topics), which amounts to WIKI-STALKING.
  • [15] here he makes a veiled threat.
  • [16] makes an open threat.

Furthermore My Best Wishes brought me up on charges here originally for the express purpose of getting me out of the way, so I wouldn't be able to hinder his POV-pushing. I formally request that this case be closed as frivolous and without merit, and My Best Wishes be indefinitely banned from any interaction with me. Thank you.--Galassi (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

This does seem like he is casting aspersions on editors and canvassing/admin-shopping at the same time. He appears to have gone to two Jewish administrators claiming there was antisemitic POV-pushing going on at these articles. I note that the previous case also concerned some problematic behavior regarding his editing about anti-semitism and Jews in this area of the world. Perhaps his topic ban should be modified to cover that as well.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

The diffs from April 5 and April 6 precede My Very Best Wishes' last WP:AE report so I don't see how they're relevant. I also don't see the relevance of the 2009 (!) diff.

That boils it down to essentially these two diffs: [17] and [18]. First note that the section title "Antisemitism, misogyny and seven deadly sins" was started by User:Estlandia (Miacek) [19] (also back in 2009). It's purpose seems to be to trivialize things like... antisemitism and misogyny (and going by comment, homophobia, as well). And it appears to be Estlandia who's throwing around gratuitous accusations of POV pushing there. Still that's from 2009.

Then this whole controversy was restarted recently by My Very Best Wishes with this commnet [20] and this comment [21] by an IP.

Overall these are two articles about old school Soviet/Russian scholars who, best as I can tell, DID hold some anti-semitic views. The debate is about whether this should be represented in the articles themselves. So you gonna get a discussion about anti-semitism. In both those discussions, [22] and [23] I don't see any problem with Galassi's comments. Indeed, he seems to be referring to sources and Wikipedia policies.

The timing of this report, so quickly on the heels of the previous one which (unfairly) IMO, led to Galassi's topic ban from Ukrainian topics, and the usage of diffs from before that report, seems like a spurious attempt to administer a coup de grace to one's content opponent. I don't think there's anything actionable here.

Volunteer Marek 15:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


Result concerning Galassi[edit]

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

Maurice07[edit]

As noted, Maurice07 has been blocked for a month. The socking issue is being taken up on a CU's talkpage, he can deal with that as he sees fit. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Maurice07[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:29, 30 April 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
WP:ARBAA2
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 28 April 2013 He has removed an entire paragraph that states Mount Ararat was a historical part of Armenia and a current national symbol under the pretext of "Political opinion can not be included here."
  2. 25 April 2013 He has continuously edit warred information he has wanted to add which states "Pakistan does not recognize Armenia's independence". This is followed up by a suitable opportunity for the mentioned user to proclaim that Armenia occupies Azerbaijani territory. The edit-summary is also vague. He merely wrote "+ info" as a way of concealing the controversial material.
  3. 29 April 2013 He deleted 1,250 characters worth of information from the Armenia article without any consensus whatsoever and wrote in his edit-summary "vandalic sentence removed."
  4. 27 March 2013 He has violated WP:NCGN by deleting the Armenian name of Diyarbakir, an ancient Armenian city, without an edit-summary or any sort of consensus.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 28 April 2013 by Dr.K. (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on 15 January 2013 by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This user, who is already sanctioned under ARBMAC, has now spilled his nationalistic POV pushing agenda into Armenian related articles. He has continuously edit-warred over paragraphs worth of information regarding Mount Ararat, a mountain which is highly relevant in terms of historical and societal importance for the Armenian people. The paragraph, which is reliably sourced, makes no vague attempt of mentioning that fact. On the other hand, the mentioned user has claimed in his edit-summary that it is "irrelevant info".

The mentioned user has continued his edit-warring over information regarding 1 country out of the 195 or so countries in the world that hasn't recognized Armenia's independence. The user has used this edit as a suitable opportunity to invoke a political opinion used by the Pakistani government which condemns "Armenia's occupation of Azerbaijani land". Not only is this information insignificant to an article on the country of Armenia, but it is a way of pushing a POV to shed "light" to the fact that Armenia is an occupier in probably the most important article on Armenia, the Armenia article itself.

Maurice07 is not here to build a better and more neutral encyclopedia. He has had a long history of disruption towards articles relating to Greece, Cyprus and etc. He is currently blocked for 1 month and is under serious suspicion of sockpuppeting. Might I also add that during his ARBMAC enforcement filed by Dr.K., he has had some edits pertaining to the harassment of Armenian related articles as well. See: 12.

Though these diffs may be 2-3 months old, it does shed light as to how far back his history of disruption goes. Without the proper sanctions enforced, chances are this history of disruption will continue well into the future.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
reported with a ce here.


Discussion concerning Maurice07[edit]

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

Statement by Maurice07[edit]

Statement by (username)[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.

Estlandia[edit]

Estlandia (formerly editing as Miacek) and Volunteer Marek are warned.  Sandstein  07:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Estlandia[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Volunteer Marek 19:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Estlandia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Eastern Europe
  • Estlandia topic banned from all Poland related articles. Estlandia topic banned from all articles related to Nazi Germany and modern far-right politics.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. May 1 2013 Estlandia's edit summary: shut up finally your fucking shouting mouth, crybaby!
  2. March 11 A user whom apparently Estlandia emailed in an attempt to get him into conflicts with me and whom Estlandia asked to “look at some subject” does the right thing and posts on Estlandia’s talk, basically turning down his offer/request. This shows Estlandia is engaging in blatant off-wiki canvassing, and is trying to inflame the battleground atmosphere by attempting to recruit (though in this case failing) other users to harass me or get into arguments with me.

Evidence of long term stalking (in addition to the examples above)

3.October 5 2012 Estlandia shows up to an article he has never edited just to engage in "revenge reverts"

4.October 5 2012 Estlandia shows up to an article he has never edited just to engage in "revenge reverts"

5.I brought the issue up on his talk page October 5 2012. Estlandia did not even bother denying that he was stalking my edits just threw some random accusations my way.

6.[24] This one’s not a revert, but it’s another instance where Estlandia shows up to an article he’s never edited just because I am active on it. It shows clearly that he is stalking my edits. I’ve also brought this up on his talk page [25], and again, he doesn’t even bother denying that he’s stalking my edits just responds with a "I can edit whatever articles I want" (the equivalent of saying "yeah, I’m stalking your edits and you can’t do anything about it")

7.[26] Not a revert but more evidence that Estlandia is following me around (this is an article I had just created)

8.[27] Ditto.

9.[28] – shows up to an article which he’s never edited, a topic which AFAIK he’s never edited, shortly after I made an edit to it [29]

10.Estlandia also followed me to the Persecution by Muslims article (a nice little POV hit piece), now deleted. He had never edited the article before, but when I put it up for AfD he showed up literally within minutes to oppose the deletion [30].

11.Harassment on my talk page: [31]

12.Shows up to a 3RR report that had nothing to do with him [32] [33] (note – I was not sanctioned here and there was no 3RR violation)

13.Popping in for some axe-grinding into a discussion on my talk which did not concern him [34]

Individually, these aren’t problematic but they do clearly show a pattern – Estlandia is following my edits around, making it clear that he is ‘watching me’ and looking for an excuse to get involved. There's more but that's what I can remember/find off the top of my head.

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

I don't know if Miacek/Estlandia has been officially warned about discretionary sanctions in this topic area before. He was previously topic banned from Eastern European topics [35] (which was later amended [36]). He's certainly aware of discretionary sanctions in the Eastern European topics as he was involved in several of the cases and has involved himself deeply here, at WP:AE, even in a report right above this one (on Galassi)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Normally I would just ignore this behavior, as annoying and disruptive as it is - which is why I didn't file any reports based on prior incidents like those in 2012 - but the latest outburst clearly crossed the line.

In the past when I've asked Estlandia to stop following me around he has not even bothered denying that he's engaging in such behavior. But he usually throws some unsubstantiated counter accusations my way, for example [37]. For the record, I noticed the Friedrich Meinecke article by looking at another user's edits, not Estlandia's. In regard to the Tuchola article when I noticed it was created, I simply expanded it because I happen to have two books on the subject (I turned it from an unsourced POV stub old version to a viable well sourced article [38])

@-walkee - I already explained above. I came to that article by checking another user's edits. YOU on the other hand showed up out of the blue, after we had a recent disagreement on another article (hence my comment). It is also a gross mischaracterization to say "A third, neutral editor involves and supports the version by Estlandia without the POV-pushing by Volunteer Marek." What User:Maunus actually said was "It clearly belongs in the article, but perhaps not in the lead" and pointed out that the source was an undergraduate journal (which was a valid point). Feel free to ask Maunus about it if you want to. And then... how did you come to this AE request (never mind your interesting edit history)? Volunteer Marek 21:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

@ Miacek - "revenge report"??? After you said shut up finally your fucking shouting mouth, crybaby!? If I was looking for "revenge" I would've filed a report on you long time ago but I haven't until this recent outburst.Volunteer Marek 13:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

@ Lothar - sure, the year old stuff is stale and I only brought here for context - it's why I separated that out from the first two diffs which are recent.Volunteer Marek 17:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[39]

Discussion concerning Estlandia[edit]

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

Statement by Estlandia[edit]

Statement by Walkee[edit]

The claim of Volunteer Marek of being stalked is a harsh misrepresentation. He and Estlandia simply edit in the same topic area and the disputes always involve many related articles. In them, usually Volunteer Marek is the attacker who disparages a subject or tries to insert material, especially to the lead part, that advances his POV while Miacek tries to restore the NPOV.

In summary, Volunteer Marek is making an attempt to dominate the topic area by eliminating an editor of a different POV.

I have witnessed an example myself:

  • On 31 March 2013 at 18:49 Estlandia edits the article on Friedrich Meinecke, one of Germany most famous historians.
  • Three hours later Volunteer Marek shows up. It is his first time editing the article, so Volunteer Marek would be stalking Miacek. He simply reverts everything that Estlandia had edited and attacks Estlandia in the edit summary personally.
  • A third, neutral editor involves and supports the version by Estlandia without the POV-pushing by Volunteer Marek.[40]
  • I took a look at the edits and commented on the talk page without ever taking part in the edit war.
  • Volunteer Marek attacks me immediately: [41]: "I see that you've very quickly learned this game called "stalking users". Picked it up from Miacek or are you an autodidact?"
    • Final note: The word "stalking" is offensive and has been discouragd since 2008.[42]
  • In general, Volunteer Marek uses a highly inflammatory language in almost all his comments, uses edit summaries to spread accusations against editors, attacks everyone personally and brings a huge amount of vicious accusations against those he is arguing against. It seems that he purposefully tries to escalate every dispute, no matter how trivial.

--walkeetalkee 20:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


Conclusion[edit]

Dear administrators, this Arbitration Enforcement complaint (that is trying to enforce a sanction the accused is not under) about incivility is absurd. Volunteer Marek is an account that insults others as "shithead" and miraculously is never brought to justice apart from receiving countless warnings in the topic area that fall on deaf ears and are not finally enforced. --walkeetalkee 23:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by My very best wishes[edit]

I am looking at this " very nice" conversation (diff 11 by Volunteer Marek). What had happened?

  1. Volunteer Marek received a barnstar from another user (the title is "A barnstar for you!").
  2. Estlandia suddenly appears with a strange highly inflammatory message (Russian) about Nazi agents, spies and saboteurs. What it means? What he tells is a famous Soviet slogan (nice picture!). According to a publication, whole text of this slogan reads: "Искореним врагов народа — троцкистско-бухаринских шпионов — террористов и диверсантов — агентов фашизма! Смерть изменникам родины!". Translation: "Let us exterminate the enemies of the people - the Trotsky-Bukharin spies - the terrorists and saboteurs - agents of fascism! Death to the traitors of the motherland!".
  3. Estlantia explains the meaning of his message: "And to accuse Marek of being a commie never came to my mind. He's rather on the other end of the spectrum." That means "you, the Nazi" (please compare with wording "Aryanization" used by Galassi [43] above)
  4. VM calls Estlandia "a dishonest idiot".

This is an example of harassment by Estlandia. To me, this posting by Estlandia also looks like a personal threat, especially knowing the difficult relations between him and VM.

Let me also tell that using words "wolf pack" about Volunteer Marek (and apparently someone else, "wolf pack") on my talk page today by Estlandia [44] was grossly inappropriate.

Statement by Estlandia (Miacek)[edit]

A revenge report by Volunteer Marek. He's involved in a number of disputes with me at the moment and tries to gain the upper hand in the dispute by getting me topic banned. I agree with the analysis by Walkee, see above, I'd just add a few remarks. My edit summary yesterday was offensive, but so are Volunteer Marek's comments I've had to endure: 'Don't be an asshole', 'you're a dishonest idiot'. His accusations that I'm somehow following him are very hypocritical. It is VM, who from time to time appears to topics (like Islam, or German politics) he never edited before, when I'm just having a conflict with someone. Recently he appeared twice to an article he'd never edited before, and during the first case his first edit was to revert me [45]. More to come. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 06:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


Comment by Lothar von Richthofen[edit]

Haven't really looked too far into the particularities of the report, but I can say that I think the proposed tBan from modern far-right politics is unwarranted. I've seen Miacek around a decent bit at Golden Dawn (Greece), and his editing there is quite unproblematic. Also, I'm unsure as to why VM is bringing up stale conversations from almost a year ago. All it really shows is that there's bad blood between the two of them (which should be obvious also from Miacek's Polandball userbox). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus[edit]

I don't like muzzling people with ibans other than in extreme cases, and I don't think it is needed here. At least, not for the entirety of EE. All I see is some uncivility and following a user around, neither of which are nice, but neither of which suggest content disruption. Perhaps some sort of an interaction ban would be of more use. Even so, I am not sure what's the problem with [46]. If an editor I often disagrees with come to my new article and fixes grammar, I'd rather like to think of it as a good faith gesture. Some other diffs like [47] are more worrying, but... enough for an interaction ban? I'd have doubts. Something is needed to deradicalize the atmosphere here, something that won't prevent anyone from doing good content work. A civility warning, perhaps, backed with a reminder about ye'old Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Standard_discretionary_sanctions? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Estlandia[edit]

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

The edit summary by Estlandia being reported here ("shut up finally your fucking shouting mouth, crybaby!") is a clear violation of WP:NPA, and is unacceptable. Eastlandia must desist from such edits or face sanctions. But as Walkee points out, Volunteer Marek has also recently engaged in unduly confrontative conduct (March 31 2013). The other matters that have been raised, including the mutual accusations of stalking and the diffs of previous misconduct by Volunteer Marek, appear to be rather old (2012 or earlier) and therefore not immediately actionable. (I may have overseen some recent diffs, but given the length of the report(s), I am focusing on dated diffs. Please always supply a date with your diffs, as per the instructions.) My general impression is that both parties have a long history of topic-related misconduct and that despite multiple sanctions they have both not yet quite managed to approach or resolve disputes collegially, or to come to terms with each other. I strongly advise both of them to avoid each other as much as possible, and to refrain from any confrontative conduct whatsoever, or it is likely that one or both of them will receive an indefinite topic and/or interaction ban at some point. For now, I am closing this with a formal warning to Estlandia, as required per WP:AC/DS#Warnings (which does not exempt users previously sanctioned) as a prerequisite for future sanctions. Volunteer Marek should also consider themselves warned that they should not resume conduct for which they have previously been sanctioned.  Sandstein  07:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Akuri[edit]

Akuri is warned about the availability of discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  06:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Akuri[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Mathsci (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Akuri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 3 May 2013 Editing logged out,[48] Akuri writes, It is well known that "Palestinians" are illegal settlers from Arabia on Talk:Palestinians.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
Has previously been warned by arbitrators, checkusers and other adminstrators about editing logged out, which gives the appearance of evading scrutiny.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Akuri has a long record of editing logged out from webhost ranges and open proxies. Those IPs and proxies, almost all of which have been blocked, are listed here. Akuri has given no reasonable excuse for editing logged out and has been evasive with checkusers (Timotheus Canens, Deskana). He has not given the appearance of being willing to abide by wikipedia editing rules. In particular here he posted inflammatory comments while logged out on a talk page that clearly falls within arbitration restrictions. Note that, apart from Fatimid art, I have never edited any content remotely connected with the Middle East. I am not sure what sanctions are appropriate, but too many problems are created by logged out edits like this. Mathsci (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A checkuser and former arbitrator, Deskana, has already explained policy on sockpuppet categories to Akuri.[49][50][51] It is probably the only way to keep track of prolific IP/open proxy hopping. Mathsci (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Only three edits have ever been made by this particular open proxy to wikipedia.[52] The first edit here, removing a sockpuppet tag, was Akuri.[53] The second edit was 18 minutes later to Talk:Palestinians (as above). There was a third edit, self-identifying as Akuri, 8 hours later.[54] Akuri's claim that the second edit wasn't by him is not believable. His stories about why he uses open proxies are equally unconvincing. Every time he has used an open proxy, he has been the only user to have done so on wikipedia (within that time span). That can be checked on all the IPs in the suspected sockpuppet category which do not start with 101 or 110. Akuri's "story" does not ring true. A checkuser might possibly be able to confirm that the three edits were made by the same user. (A somewhat grey area.) I have dropped a note to a checkuser. Mathsci (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
So far Akuri has not explained how he can "edit from home" without having some kind of internet service provider there. Mathsci (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[55]

Discussion concerning Akuri[edit]

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

Statement by Akuri[edit]

This comment was not posted by me. The IP address is an open proxy, and someone else evidently was using it.

Regarding the rest of Mathsci's complaint, I would not be using open proxies if I could edit any other way. My default IP range is caught in a huge rangeblock of several thousand IPs, and I don't qualify for IP block exemption. I've asked one admin, King of Hearts, if he could think of any other way for me to edit, but he couldn't. I also explained here why I often have to edit while logged out for account security reasons.

I've been reluctant to bring up Mathsci's actions towards me at a noticeboard because I didn't want to create drama, but now that he has raised the issue here I would like it to be dealt with. This page is a sockpuppet category that Mathsci created about me, where he tagged 57 IP addresses as my sockpuppets. Some of these IPs are IPs that I edited from while logged out, and the rest are IPs that I edited from before I had an account. My account has never been blocked, and when posting logged out I never tried to make it a secret who I was, so I don't believe my editing while logged out constitutes socking. It also was not socking for me to post as an IP address before I had an account. I never have been reported at SPI, and Mathsci does not seem to have consulted any admin before creating this category.

I also want to note that the diff Mathsci provided of me having allegedly been warned about ARBPIA previously is, in fact, a comment that Mathsci posted in my user talk at the same time that he made this report. Akuri (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I want to point out that Mathsci's statement "Every time he has used an open proxy, he has been the only user to have done so on wikipedia" is false. One example, and this is not the only example, is this IP. The edits on April 19th to 27th were made by me, but the edits on April 11th and 12th were by someone else.
In response to Sandstein, I think that Mathsci's conduct towards me should be actionable because it is similar to the battleground conduct he was admonished for a year ago. [56] Although it's now spread into other areas, Mathsci's animosity towards me was originally because of my edits in the race and intelligence topic area (see his comments about me in this AE report), which is the topic area where he was admonished for his conduct. He also is currently under a sanction for making frivolous AE reports. [57] Akuri (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Sandstein, if you prohibit me from editing logged out anymore, what do you expect me to do when editing from a computer where there is a risk of my password being stolen if I log in? Akuri (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
By creating a declared alternate account called "Akuri public". A solution practiced by arbs and admins in the past for just such an occasion. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd likely have to use that account almost 100% of the time. Even when I edit from home, I'm connecting via a semi-public network belonging to my employer whose configuration I'm not in control of. I don't trust the network admins there to keep the network free of spyware, and I also know that if they were monitoring my connection as I logged in and wanted my password, they would be able to get it. When I could edit from my default IP range I could mitigate that risk by using HTTPS (at least when editing from home), but HTTPS almost never is possible when I have to use proxies. Akuri (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Deskana[edit]

I can confirm that, as of the time I wrote this message, 186.227.61.51 is an open anonymous proxy on port 8080. As a checkuser, I can confirm that the only edits that have been made from this IP are the three that are shown in Special:Contributions/186.227.61.51. No edits have been made from this IP address by registered accounts. That is the only information that is available. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


Result concerning Akuri[edit]

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

The complainant's contention that Akuri made the edit at issue remains unproven, because Akuri contests this and there is no readily apparent circumstantial evidence to suggest that Akuri made this edit: Their contribution history appears to contain no other contributions related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I therefore suggest closing this request as not actionable. The broader issue of IP or proxy use by Akuri, as well as the issue of Mathsci's creation of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Akuri, as raised by Akuri in their response, does not appear to relate to an arbitration case and is therefore outside the scope of this noticeboard.  Sandstein  10:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci's supplemental evidence does make it appear rather likely that the edit at issue was in fact made by Akuri. While I understand that it is possible that the edit was indeed made by a third party who just happened to use the open proxy at the same time as Akuri, this strikes me as considerably less likely in view of the circumstances. In addition, people who knowingly use open proxies or shared IPs anonymously must assume the risk of their contributions being (mis-)associated with those of others - if they want to avoid this, they must log into their user account. The edit, as such, is problematic because it violates WP:NOTFORUM: Wikipedia talk pages are not fora for making inflammatory statements about article topics. In view of this, I intend to issue a discretionary warning sanctions to Akuri. While Akuri is correct that the use of open proxies is not prohibited, the use of IPs to avoid scrutiny is. I don't see why Akuri can't use open proxies while logged in. The explanation here is not convincing. Consequently, in the event of continued problematic IP editing by (or likely by) Akuri, I intend to impose a sanction prohibiting Akuri from logged-out editing within the scope of topics covered by discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  15:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
In response to Akuri, your security concerns appear far-fetched to me. Most other users, including myself, appear to be able to edit perfectly well on computers and networks that they may not completely control. At any rate, your concerns in that regard do not excuse you from observing our rules against using IPs or alternate accounts for the purpose of avoiding scrutiny. I am closing this request with a warning as mentioned above.  Sandstein  06:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Rgambord[edit]

Wrong forum: not an appeal of an arbitration enforcement action. Please use WP:ANI.  Sandstein  11:39, 4 May 2013 (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 
Rgambord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Rgambord (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Log entry: [58]
User_Talk page notice: [59] *note, ban is 1 month in ban log?* ANI discussion: [60] Talk:Men's Right Movement discussion: [61]
Administrator imposing the sanction 
TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
[62]

Statement by Rgambord[edit]

Ok, so here's what happened. First, I attempted to merge three sections in the article's talk page because they were all on the same topic. Here's the diff [63]. As you can see, I screwed up and duplicated, rather than moved the sections. The next morning I noticed my mistake and deleted the duplicate sections. Someone reverted. I reverted, saying they were duplicate sections and a couple of reverts back and forth before the dup's were deleted. Ok. Here's the history page showing the short revert war/confusion about midway down the page [64]. It turns out that User:Sonicyouth86 had added a comment into the section I was trying to delete and I just didn't notice, so I was accidentally removing his one comment each time I reverted without realising.

Next, I made this edit [65] to remove content posted by User:South19 which clearly violates WP:BDP, and if not, my edit was obviously in good faith. I also left a somewhat uncivil remark on that user's talk page, which I immediately redacted when it was pointed out.

Next, User:Sonicyouth86 called me out on [66] accusing me of arbitrarily deleting talk page content. Due to the fast nature of the talk page, and repeatedly having run into edit conflicts on the massive page, I didn't read as closely as I should have, and just assumed that he was User:South19, and was referring to my removal of his "domestic terrorist" statement. (He also misapplied various WP rules and generally came off as a wonderful guy...) I couldn't believe someone could be so indignant, and responded rudely. That snowballed. I quickly realised my mistake and that I had accidentally been removing his comment from the talk page. I tried to apologize on his talk page. He immediately reverted the apology. I tried to explain myself on ANI, yet he kept attacking me. Eventually I was fed up and stopped trying to defend myself. TParis then topic banned me. The reason given: "Refactoring or altering the comments of others you are in a dispute with and deleting entire sections of an ongoing discussion on a talk page are disruptive." I did neither. I altered a comment which wp policy demanded altering of, and of an editor I was not in a dispute with, and I moved most of a section, not deleted it; I only accidentally deleted a single comment, which the poster quickly noticed and restored. During the dispute, I immediately attempted to resolve it in good faith with sonicyouth [67], but he declined my apology and explanation by immediately reverting the diff and continuing to accuse me of vandalism.

Today, I, not understanding how bans worked, thought that I must not have been banned after all since I was still able to edit the page, and I made a couple of edits (now reverted) in the process. I had posted one last message to TParis declaring that the reasons he proposed to ban me for just weren't true, so my assumption was not unwarranted. That should have been the end of story, but it seems Sonicyouth86 still has an axe to grind, since he's pushing really hard to have me banned, and I'm not completely sure why he holds such a grudge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_violation_RGambord

Also, recent apologies to sonicyouth (clearly he hasn't accepted this one) and Tparis: [68] [69]

Statement by Tparis[edit]

Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Rgambord[edit]

  • I'm wholly uninvolved - I come here based solely on the ANI. First, Rgambord is not a new editor - they know how things work, and as a minimum know how to follow a wikilink. He was rightfully warned about potential AE enforcement - that warning provides links to the description of enforcement, including bans, etc. There's no humanly possible way for someone with this level of experience - especially in a "hostile" set of articles - to not understand that bans are not technical blocks of a page. He got caught (as per the current ANI), and now is asking for the ban to be rescinded? By getting caught violating it, the ban should be extended - it was valid in the first part. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Rgambord[edit]

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

I am procedurally closing this request because it has been made in the wrong forum. What is being appealed here is a sanction made under the authority of a community discussion, not under the authority of the Arbitration Committee. In other words, this is not an appeal of an arbitration enforcement action, and it cannot therefore be appealed via the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Rgambord is free to resubmit the appeal at WP:ANI, which is the forum to be used for appeals per Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation#Remedy.  Sandstein  11:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Gilabrand[edit]

I am marking this request as closed because it was archived without action being taken.  Sandstein  16:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Gilabrand[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Gilabrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR Restriction
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 10 May 2013 Embedded in a series of edits that don't do much is a small change intended to reinforce the notion that Ariel University is an Israeli institution (first paragraph).
  2. 10 May 2013 removes paragraph from same article
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The first edit constitutes a revert insofar as an earlier edit today by a different editor attempted to locate Ariel University in "Israel" (when in fact it is in the West Bank). Gilabrand's edit is more of the same, expressed slightly differently.

  • Sandstein, you have previously sanctioned Gilabrand twice yourself under ARBPIA, [70]. I fail to see why you are now unwilling to do so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • @ErikHaugen -- as the edit summary notes, the second edit removes "unsourced commentary" from the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC) One sentence removed by the edit (thus perhaps alleged to be "unsourced") is: "In July 2006 the Council for Higher Education rejected the proposal (which had been paired with an initiative by Shimon Peres to unite several regional colleges in the Galilee into one umbrella university)." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • As a gesture of goodwill I would like to withdraw this report (assuming that it's up to me to propose such a thing). I first approached Gilabrand to request that she self-revert and was disappointed that she refused to do so; even so, I think other editors' views that the edits themselves weren't significant enough are likely to carry the day, so in the interests of saving people's time here I suggest that this report be closed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[71]

Discussion concerning Gilabrand[edit]

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

Statement by Gilabrand[edit]

I added the word "Israeli" to the article, because there is no question that Ariel University is an Israeli institution. This is hardly the same as stating it is "in Israel." I also made a long series of copyedits to the lead and other paragraphs. I did not revert anything that the above editor edited. He took out the word Israeli, but I was not working on that paragraph and did not touch it. In fact I was not even aware that anyone else was editing the page because I was in the middle of an edit when he removed the word Israeli, and I had not seen it before I saved my edits. Improving the English and reorganizing the material so it is chronological and not repetitive was my only aim. --Geewhiz (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Soosim[edit]

I just went and reinstated gilabrand's edits. the edits are fine. if you look at the timing, it clearly is a case of simultaneous editing by gilabrand and nomo. no reason for any sanctions here at all. and if nomo wants to discuss Israeli versus in Israel, fine. but not here. Soosim (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000[edit]

(Not commenting on Gilabrand's highlighted actions at the moment) In my opinion Sandstein's legal analysis is not correct. It is normal practice for sanctions to be modified and extended over time. Once someone has been warned about the existence of the sanctions, it is their responsibility to keep informed about them. There is some possibility for discretion in relation to individual editors who may honestly not know about the changes, but in the case of an experienced editor who has met and commented on the 1RR restriction multiple times it is hard to see why such discretion is appropriate. Gilabrand was warned about the existence of the sanctions and provably knows they were extended to include 1RR. It is enough to satisfy the warning requirement as well as fair process. Zerotalk 03:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

It seems to me that the report by Nomoskedasticity does not show a deliberate violation of 1RR. First of all, the reasoning that the first edit is some sort of revert is rather shaky as saying a university is an Israeli institution is different from saying it is an institution in Israel. Secondly, the time between edits is very narrow as Nomoskedasticity made the revert a minute after Gilabrand's last edit and the subsequent edit that is being characterized as a second revert was just eight minutes later and may not have created an edit conflict given that the changes did not involve the same content. Not even sure what is so objectionable about the bit that was removed. The statement being removed was unsourced puffery stating "University status is an issue of prestige, increased government funding for research, as well as the ability to issue doctorate degrees" and deleting such content seems completely legitimate.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning Gilabrand[edit]

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

In my view, this request is procedurally unactionable because it contains no diff proving that Gilabrand was previously individually notified of discretionary sanctions in general and of Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR Restriction in particular. The wording of WP:AC/DS#Warnings mandates such a warning (it uses the imperative form "shall"), no matter how aware of these sanctions Gilabrand may in fact have been, or whether they have previously been sanctioned. A notification about the 1RR restriction in particular is needed because that provision is not a Committee decision, but has apparently been imposed by administrators as a discretionary sanction, such that the warning requirements apply to it also.  Sandstein  13:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at my old sanctions of Gilabrand, it appears that I made these on the basis of a 2008 notification of Gilabrand by PhilKnight. That notification should have been cited in the request. However, these earlier cases did not involve the general 1RR restriction, so we still need a diff of a prior warning about that specific restriction.  Sandstein  14:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there some analysis of the second edit demonstrating that it is a revert? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Dicklyon[edit]

Apteva's topic ban clarified; Born2cycle warned; Dicklyon reminded. Gatoclass (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


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

Request concerning Dicklyon[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Apteva (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#All parties reminded
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 30 April 2013 Have you (twice)
  2. 29 April 2013 named editor, discussion directed at and about editor, not content
  3. 29 April 2013 "you're wrong"
  4. 29 April 2013 "you mis-parse it"
  5. 28 April 2013 you, your ... agenda
  6. 28 April 2013 you
  7. 27 April 2013 named editor, failure to assume good faith (I am of course he or she also)
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 

This is an editor who has been warned countless times not to personalize discussions, and insists on continuing.

  1. Warned on 26 April 2013 by Apteva (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on 26 April 2013 by Apteva (talk · contribs)
  3. Warned on 30 April 2013 by Apteva (talk · contribs)
  4. Warned on 4 January 2013 by Apteva (talk · contribs)
  5. Warned on 3 January 2013 by Born2cycle (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This creates a very toxic editing environment that does not encourage and welcome participation.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[72]

Discussion concerning Dicklyon[edit]

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

Statement by Dicklyon[edit]

The underlying problem is embodied in the person of Apteva, not in me pointing that out. Shouldn't we insist that he respect the wishes of the community in banning him from his continuing anti-MOS disruption such as this section blanking?

I ask here again, can his topic ban be rephrased to include the part that the closer omitted from what the community had overwhelmingly endorsed? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive244#Continuing topic ban violations by Apteva Dicklyon (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Proposal – clarify Apteva's topic ban by adding the bolded phrase or something like it:

Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion, and from advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles.

As for Born2Cycle's comments below, note that he advertises his long-running campaign at User:Born2cycle#A goal: naming stability at Wikipedia and at User:Born2cycle/FAQ. When he ramps it up as he recently did here and continues to do here, am I not allowed to comment on that? It doesn't seem that his various warnings (including Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Born2cycle warned) and pledges (including User:Born2cycle/pledge) and sanctions (most recently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive245#Continued tendentious editing by Born2cycle) over the last several years have had much moderating influence on this disruptive behavior of domination of move discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Smokey Bear Billboard Memphis TN 2012-06-23 010.jpg

Speaking of personalization, I cracked up my wife with my quip at the Yosemite ranger station last summer, "Who can prevent forest fires?"

Statement by Ohconfucius[edit]

It really is too early for silly season, but this request is all rather surreal. It's very possible to take things too literally, and it looks very much like a good example. Apteva has carefully chosen diffs every instance of the word "you", then uses it to accuse Dick of making a "personal" argument in the sense prohibited by the Arbcom ruling. All I see is civil discussion. Such use of "you" was most often innocent, when Dick was trying to address an answer to or comment on what Apteva said. Methinks Apteva is a month too late with this. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 11:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Indeed, B2C, beware of the Boomerang. I find myself often questioning the utility of posting to Apteva's talk page. I don't know if he's feels that a particular user is bullying him, as it is obvious from his reaction to DL, or are they so burnt out that they have become generally ultra-sensitive to criticism: but this removal, within 6 minutes, may indicate a strong streak of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. That, plus the diffs supplied by Apteva in evidence against DL – particularly the first two – strongly suggests a serotonin top-up (i.e. a holiday in the sun) would be largely beneficial. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 18:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I just saw this and this as other recent examples of an overwrought editor's objection. It's surreal.

    Also, since Apteva already launched this AE against DL, this looks very much like harassment. Apteva, you really do need to take that well-earned holiday in the sun. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 01:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

  • As to B2C, I was johnny come lately to the Kelly Yeomans suicide article, but I do and did object to B2C carry on his advocacy in that connection. I also made a complaint to an admin at about the time the RM was closed. Note that he is the top contributor to that discussion by a very long margin. He entered the discussion, and was there pushing his point of view against near-unanimous opposition right until it was closed. That indicated B2C still doesn't know when to stop, although before I got involved in that discussion, others had already complained to him on his talk page, to no avail. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 12:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Re these comments: a block isn't punitive if its objective is to prevent disruption in future. It seems obvious by now that B2C will only stop flogging the dead horse when either the stick or the carcass has been removed. Only the carcass has been dragged away. Note that I did not support a full topic ban on RMs for B2C when it was first proposed, but the recidivism now seems to warrant a broader ban. Another animal will appear before long and be beaten to a carcass, so I believe on that basis some pre-emptive block or formal topic ban would be desirable. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 11:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • @TP: The experiment has failed all right. B2C the self-styled "expert" has been gaming the rules at every turn since you gave him a slap on the wrist and a virtually unenforceable ruling. He saw through that when he awarded you that "Nobel Peace Prize" that you were foolish enough to accept. He has blanked warnings (with a rather dismissive "keep count somewhere else") from fellow editors, whom he knows full well he can afford to ignore without incurring sanctions. Expertise is fine when offered as advice you can accept or refuse; B2C's "expertise" is of the rather "down your throat" sort that mny of us have said we can do without. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 16:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • @Melanie: You put your finger on the problem. In theory, B2C ought to know that receiving a pile of complaints on his talk would be a cue to moderate his behaviour. But no. It seems that in practice, B2C's there waiting for a Sysop to come along (whether independently or because of being seized) and draw that bright red line. He knows then and only then does he absolutely need to stop. He can keep advocating and flogging, and removing talk page comments with dismissive remarks like "keep count somewhere else" and "archiving" until then; and even when a Sysop comes, it's only to deliver a warning and not a block. So we have our work cut out. -- Ohc digame / ¿que pasa? 03:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq[edit]

I suppose admins will have noticed at least some of the background which has involved enormous discussions in multiple areas. I ask that admins considering this case think of what would benefit the encylopedia, rather than basing a decision on whether "Have you read it?" is an abuse of a talk page. A tiny part of the background:

Johnuniq (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by (SmokeyJoe)[edit]

The listed warnings are not less personal or confrontational than the listed violations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that we have or want rules on the use of the second person singular pronoun, or the use of names. They are especially useful when thanking, for example. I don't feel that I know Apteva or Dicklyon very well, but have noticed, in reasonable debating, that Apteva comes across as tense, and Dicklyon comes across as direct, perhaps terse readable as snide. This combination is prone to inflame. I don't think blocks are useful in calming. The two could each be asked to not address or reference the other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Apteva[edit]

This is a very serious issue that must be dealt with in an effective manner, and passing it off as otherwise is ludicrous. For example, while this editor is the worst offender that I have seen, should they be allowed this pattern of editing, it is like a cancer that spreads to other editors. I suggest a one month block (oddly, the editor in question says they are on a wikibreak), escalating to longer blocks if the pattern continues. Apteva (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

To SmokeyJoe, the correct place to use you and an editor's name is on their talk page, not at an article or project talk page. All of Dicklyon's comments that are directed to me need to be solely and only on my talk page, not snide remarks at an RM discussion. Apteva (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

To My very best wishes, the comments do a great deal of harm. There are two methods of decision making used, consensus and parliamentary, and neither permit directing comments to an individual. One requires directing comments to the group, the other to the moderator. There are no exceptions. Apteva (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

To Johnuniq, obviously the AE complaint in October 2012 should not have been withdrawn, as doing so may have reinforced the idea that there was nothing wrong with the violations that had occurred, and a specific remedy should have instead been suggested. Apteva (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

To My very best wishes, it is not a problem if an editor says "I disagree with your argument because..." once, and it can be forgiven, but it is prudent to point it out to them on their talk page that it would have been better to say "the argument" instead of "your argument" so that it does not become a habit. When it does become a habit, it becomes a very serious problem. As to "it might be a good idea to politely tell someone that they are wrong and explain why (assuming they are capable of accepting someone else criticism and improving)." I have brought this up ad nauseum (and quite politely) on the editor in question's talk page. I need someone to make it more important to them, so that they will stop. Apteva (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This, by another editor, not Dicklyon, is the sort of post that I am objecting to. "I take it you haven't bothered to follow any of the links to BMI." Apteva (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

To Omnedon, incivility is a related, but different subject from personalization. I am only addressing personalization here. Apteva (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

To Omnedon, personalization if not as much about "talking directly to other editors" as it is talking about other editors, when the subject is not any editor, as it is on the talk page of an article or project page. See talk page guidelines. Apteva (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

To ErikHaugen, absolutely. "since you understand it much better than I do, maybe you should take the next crack at it" excludes anyone else who might want to "take the next crack". That comment belongs only and solely on the editor in question's talk page, not on the article or project talk page. This is basic talk page protocol. Apteva (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Still more. Deleted with the edit summary "noise".[73] Dicklyon began by saying "I didn't want to mention you by name", which is a thought that does not need to be said, and while commendable, using "you" is no better, nor is any personalization. This edit[74] was at first deleted by another editor and then un-deleted. "can you please just stop it" belongs only and solely on the talk page of whichever editor, such as myself, that this was directed to. Apteva (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

  • A narrowing of my topic ban would be a very good move. The current topic ban is totally political and totally absurd and intended solely to silence dissent. Topic ban everyone who does not agree with one side and then pretend there is consensus. The real topic ban that should have been proposed and the restrictions that should be imposed, is to not propose any page moves based on hyphens and dashes for one year, and remove the absurd restriction to one account, that is severely impacting my ability to improve the encyclopedia. Those are the two outcomes that I request with regard to myself. Apteva (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

B2C is well known for being wordy. That in itself is not a problem. All discussions can be closed regardless of how wordy they are. Apteva (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

As to the truth that MOS does not apply to titles, the idea that it does was rejected as absurd when it was first proposed, and only implemented by topic banning those who disagreed. It was brought up at AT in January and rejected. Obviously the suggestion that it does needs to be removed from the MOS. Stifling dissent by topic banning is absurd and even juvenile. I have not to my knowledge said anything about the topic any time in the last month, and this is a non-issue that does not address any activity that needs to be curtailed. Apteva (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

As to Dicklyon's last paragraph about Smokey the Bear, the two words that jumped out at me were "last summer". Was this going on last year, long before I started complaining, and became an in-joke at that time that they were using "you" too much, instead of correcting the problem? Apteva (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

  • The allegation of "has been disruptive in discussions" is ancient history, and there has been no recent allegation of disruption that needs to be corrected. This is an issue that has already been corrected. The correct phrase is "was disruptive", and even that was disputed (and I offer as evidence that taking 500,000 bytes to decide is evidence that bringing the allegation was but that my conduct was not). There is absolutely no reason to add a sanction where none is needed.

Comment by Beyond My Ken[edit]

I suggest that reviewing admins considering sanctioning Apteva for filing an entirely frivolous enforcement request, and consider Dicyklon's suggestion that Apteva's topic ban be adjusted per the original community consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

One should note Dicklyon is the one who filed the RfC/U against Apteva that resulted in the community sanctions. Apteva filed a frivolous request regarding another editor back in January, which lead to a lot of ill will, after that editor was responsible for initiating the AE case about Apteva noted by Johnuniq above. The one who seems to be personalizing disputes the most is Apteva by filing these types of frivolous requests against various opponents.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

@Gato, the only topic ban issued since the case allowed the editor to reference the MOS in order to justify edits in articlespace. In other words, general discussion of the application of MOS were not allowed, but only that which is necessary to explain an edit the editor made to an article. However, I think you could consider just imposing a ban on filing AE requests. Apteva's AE requests have been rather POINTy and frivolous, demonstrating clear battleground behavior.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by My very best wishes[edit]

Perhaps I used to significantly stronger wording and accusations in another subject area, but the comments in the diffs look a little tense but more or less harmless. I do not see any reason for sanctions.

@Apteva. Yes, I partly agree: comment on content, not on the contributor. However, I do not really see a huge problem if someone tells: "I disagree with your argument because..." or "your edit is inconsistent with RS policy because...", instead of telling "this argument" and "this edit". Catching others on minor technicalities is not really a good idea. And remember, they could be right: perhaps this is your problem. In fact, it might be a good idea to politely tell someone that they are wrong and explain why (assuming they are capable of accepting someone else criticism and improving). But this is just a general idea; I only saw your diffs.My very best wishes (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I did not see this ANI post. Frankly, having so protracted disputes about minor technical issues is beyond imagination and disruptive. Just to clarify, I am not familiar with this case, but only looked at the diffs provided above and do not see them too disruptive per se, although the whole dispute is obviously disruptive. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge[edit]

The majority of diffs presented in this RfE are not persuasive of any gross misconduct. However, there are three that appear to cross the line:

Clearly, there seems to be some sort of personalization of this dispute that should not have been personalized. Perhaps a reminder/warning to Dicklyon to not personalize disputes might be the best way of handling the situation. A short break (perhaps a month) might also be helpful. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Born2cycle[edit]

As a regular target and witness of Dicklyon's inappropriately personalized commentary on article/WP talk pages, I must concur with this statement of A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs), which I simply repeat:

However, there are three [diffs] that appear to cross the line... Perhaps a reminder/warning to Dicklyon to not personalize disputes might be the best way of handling the situation.

To Quest's list of three line crossings, I would also add:

Those references to me in terms of Dicklyon's opinion that what happened at Yogurt was me getting "my way" is WP:BATTLEGROUND language. It certainly does not reflect how I view these situations. That Dicklyon sees it that way (and not just with me) is a problem, and explains why he makes the inappropriately personalized comments on article/WP talk pages that he does. That needs to be addressed.

I think the following suggestion from Quest is going too far, though it would be appropriate if the problematic behavior continues after the warning: " A short break (perhaps a month) might also be helpful."

I strongly oppose any BOOMERANG result to the petitioner of this request, as the underlying complaint has reasonable basis, and BOOMERANGing would discourage others from reporting inappropriately personalized commentary on article/WP talk pages, and this would effectively sanction (in the approve sense) such behavior, not only from Dicklyon, but from others as well. --B2C 16:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC) series of edits to this statement done. --B2C 16:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Dicklyon

Dicklyon asks above: "am I not allowed to comment on that? ". Sure, if you think I or anyone else has been behaving inappropriately, bring it to our attention on our respective user talk pages. Not on article/WP talk pages. On article/WP talk pages, please refer only to substance, including arguments actually made, not what you imagine to be someone's motivations, whether or not you believe your opinion is backed up by what they say on their user page. By the way, if you think anything on my user page suggests anything inappropriate, please bring that up too... on my user talk page. Not anywhere else.

This is the key thing. Don't bring up negative stuff about specific WP users on article/WP talk pages. That's all. It reflects poorly on all of us. --B2C 20:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Here's a specific suggestion: When commenting on article/WP talk pages, ignore the signature. That is, reply only with comments that would make sense and mean the same thing regardless of who posted the comment to which you are replying. Thus, if they say something helpful, replying with a "thank you" is fine, despite the personal "you" reference. But if you're going to make a comment that only makes sense because of other stuff that person has written elsewhere, it almost certainly is not appropriate to bring that up on that article/WP talk page, especially if the intent is to convey something negative.

    For example, if someone says something which seems to contradict what they said or did elsewhere, question the user about the apparently contradictory behavior on that user's talk page, not on the article/WP talk page. --B2C 20:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I also oppose Dicklyon's proposal to gag Apteva with respect to advocating against the applicability of MOS on article titles. That's a very controversial issue that has no consensus, and to seek muzzling others about that, especially when he is a proponent of one side and Apteva is a proponent of the other, is just another example of Dicklyon treating WP as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. --B2C 22:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Dicklyon is at it again, making personalized comments about me on a policy talk page instead of addressing content [75]:
    • "B2C has no problem with ambiguity in titles as long as there are not two articles fighting for the same title; he defines that to be unambiguous."***NOTE: (that's not true but that's beside the point)
    • "He has been very consistent about that, as you can see from the history of the "precision" criterion, in which he has consistently worked to say that precision is bad and that titles should have just enough to distinguish the articles, not to point out their topics."
    • "B2C has not advocated doing away with recognizability, but has several times to rephrase it, like in 2009 when it tried to say what precision was good for: "Good article titles are precise enough to indicate the topic unambiguously, but not more so." he changed it into a more negative and discouraging form "Good article titles are only as precise as necessary to indicate the name of the topic unambiguously."
    • "That was one subtle step, but he keeps after it, like in his proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_36#Proposal: clarifying PRECISION, which seeks to "clarify" by getting rid of any consideration for ambiguity in titles, by changing it to add the bolded part here: "Titles usually use names and terms that are precise (see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously with respect to other Wikipedia titles." "
    • "Clearly, B2C has no problem with ambiguity, only with article title collisions."
    • "Looking at real cases where B2C pushes a narrow interpretation might; he typically does not have consensus on his side, but always pretends to."
I'm sorry, but what place do any of Dicklyon's opinions about me or anyone else have on any policy talk page? --B2C 04:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Dicklyon is at again (yes again).

It's not a good scheme, but until we can turn back the clock on some of B2Cs changes to titling guidelines, it's the mess we're stuck with.

Why is it okay to personalize in the middle of an RM discussion like this[76], never mind that the ad hominem attack claim is entirely without basis. --B2C 22:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Violation?[edit]
It has been suggested that my behavior in RM discussions recently has been problematic in some manner. Part of my pledge is based on the assumption that I don't always recognize when my behavior is problematic, and so I pledge to pay heed when others tell me it is. So if my behavior has been problematic recently, I'm not aware of where or why, and nobody has told me. Regardless, I'm quite confident there is no problematic behavior occurring now. I only say this because more than one person has suggested there is a problem and actions should be taken.

The closer of the AN about me recognized all this and closed accordingly:

Meaning: An uninvolved admin may ban [B2C] from a particular discussion he is involved in on a case by case basis after a warning that can be enforced with a block between 24 hours and the duration of the discussion he is disruptive in. This includes discussions about the close of a move or article titles discussion anywhere on Wikipedia. [77]
For the record, I have not received any warnings from any administrator about any of my behavior anywhere, and I'm not aware of being disruptive in any discussions any where, certainly not any ongoing ones. To block or ban me in any way for behavior in some closed discussion in which I was not even warned seems purely punitive, inconsistent with the previous AN, and not conducive to improving anything on WP. Thank you. --B2C 00:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
People are citing statements made by editors involved in the discussion in question. These are not warnings from uninvolved administrators on my talk page, which is what I'm due, I believe, presuming no egregious behavior on my part, before any kind of penalty is imposed. As I've noted elsewhere, the outcome of the suicide RM discussion was obvious early. My involvement was one of curiosity pursued with those who chose to participate. If I had been told my behavior was problematic I would have stopped. --B2C 04:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Omnedon - Regardless of what I've been told many times by many people, what does that have to do with whether I deserve to be blocked or punished otherwise for specific behavior in a particular discussion without a warning from an uninvolved administrator as was stated in the AN as quoted above? --B2C 20:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Huw - you seem to misunderstand my point when you say, "His suggestion in response is that those expressing concern needn't participate in the discussion ". I'm saying those who think a discussion is "done", or think it has gone off on inappropriate tangents or whatever, but is still ongoing, don't need to participate. In fact, I can't imagine continuing in a discussion that I thought was done, just to complain that others are still continuing. If others want to continue, what is it to me? Why should I complain about them wanting to continue? I just don't get that. --B2C 20:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Omnedon[edit]

Having looked at all of the diffs, I see no statements that cross the line of incivility. I've been asked by editors if I had "even bothered to read such-and-such", and things of that nature; and I admit it was annoying to me. And yes, Dicklyon tends to be rather direct when he disagrees, perhaps pushing the envelope a bit. But requesting a block for these diffs seems extreme to say the least. The term "thin-skinned" comes to mind. I've seen far worse wrongly excused and even justified. As a side note, B2C should perhaps not be among those casting stones here, given his own past record here (mentioned above). Omnedon (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

[addressed to Apteva]

I understand that the focus is personalization, but a request for a block simply for talking directly to other editors in a discussion seems even more incredible. I had assumed, incorrectly, there there was a civility component here. Omnedon (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
It's interesting that you would direct me to read the talk page guidelines, given the nature of your complaint. And yes, it is a good practice to focus on content and not editors. But it seems to me that Dicklyon was talking to editors in most cases. Omnedon (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

B2C, you have been told many times by many people in many discussions over many months. You seem to choose not to hear or acknowledge. Omnedon (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

TParis, I can't remain silent on this. B2C's behavior hasn't changed one bit since the ANI. I am certainly not going to go canvass admins to get someone to warn him, as that would not be appropriate; but just waiting on someone to notice doesn't work either. The solution you offered did not work. And I do not believe that the consensus was as you describe. Omnedon (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

TParis, further -- how did he "follow it"? B2C did nothing different whatsoever. No uninvolved admins came in to deal with the situation, and B2C's disruptive behavior continued unabated. Omnedon (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Silly, arbitrary restraints? Where was it ever made clear that editors could go and ask for intervention? Haven't I already made it clear that I would have requested such help if I thought it was held to be acceptable? No one else did that either, and I would contend it's likely for the same reason that I didn't. In any case, B2C's behavior involves tendentious editing over a period of time -- so, on "day one"? Certainly in future, assistance will be sought; but even so, your "solution" still has the issues that have been identified by Huwmanbeing and Gatoclass. Omnedon (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
You should have defined the situation more clearly; no one involved asked for such aid, though B2C was repeatedly asked to stop by several editors. Your sarcasm is unnecessary. As it happens I have never had to deal with an editor that was under sanctions -- even ones as weak and unhelpful as the one you imposed -- against the consensus of the discussion, I might add, though you claim otherwise. Omnedon (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
So basically you support B2C's ability to ignore the requests of other editors to moderate himself, until an admin becomes involved, simply because you require that. That's precisely what happened in the referenced discussion. And in fact someone did request assistance of Diannaa, except that the discussion was closed, and nothing was done. To be clear -- as has been stated by others, I'm sure you had the best of intentions. But I am not the only one who sees it as ineffective. Since I am merely a lowly editor, others will clearly need to deal with this. Omnedon (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Tony1[edit]

This is a waste of everyone's time. Tony (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by ErikHaugen[edit]

These diffs don't demonstrate anything that violates the arbcom remedy. Apteva seems to think that using the word "you" is personalizing; consider this diff supplied as evidence, where DL uses the phrase "you" when suggesting to another user that he go ahead with his proposal: "That all sounds good, but since you understand it much better than I do, maybe you should take the next crack at it." If Apteva thinks this is an example of personalizing disputes, or even of problematic behavior, then perhaps Apteva should not be bringing AE requests. I think sanctions for frivolous or vexatious requests might be an overreaction, but I think at least a warning is in order, as this does have the appearance of a vendetta and is at least a waste of everyone's time.

DL gives Apteva several warnings in the other diffs supplied. I don't think this is in itself necessarily a problem either; others have commented that that should only happen on user talk pages or AN or here or whatever, but this isn't personalizing the dispute, so the arbcom remedy isn't relevant.

Apteva: Do you stand by this diff? Do you really think this is evidence of problematic behavior, in any way? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it does not exclude anyone, and no, it does not belong on the user's talk page. That is two editors discussing how to edit an article, one making a request of another, in a collegial and constructive manner. Please don't waste AE's time with this kind of thing again. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 08:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Huwmanbeing[edit]

I've looked at the diffs that Apteva provided; though a few indicate annoyance, I'm afraid I don't see behavior that rises to a level that requires sanction; in at least a couple of cases I confess I can't even ascertain what inappropriate personalization or incivility the diff is meant to indicate (unless simply using the second-person pronoun is considered a violation, which would seem a bit odd).

The corrective actions described by Gatoclass sound appropriate as regards Apteva and Born2cycle. In particular, a reasonably short ban followed by "escalating bans for future breaches" would I think help interrupt what's clearly been a long-running cycle without being unnecessarily severe. ╠╣uw [talk] 01:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

One extra point: regarding Born2cycle's statement above that no one gave him any indication that his behaviors were problematic: [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], etc.
His suggestion in response is that those expressing concern needn't participate in the discussion [84] (a suggestion he's previously made elsewhere [85]) ╠╣uw [talk] 02:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
TParis: You claim that your remedy hasn't been tried, but we've actually already had at least one good test case for it. A recent RM I participated in became dominated by B2C to the point that various editors were clearly expressing their concerns about the disruption – concerns that did not deter B2C. During the course of the RM, no uninvolved admins intervened in the way your remedy stipulated.
You noted yourself in the closing of the previous ANI that having admins police B2C would be a "huge burden"; evidence now suggests that in practice (and not unexpectedly) it simply doesn't happen. Further, even if the remedy would/could be consistently applied, it's so constrained (at worst barring B2C from further participation in one particular discussion that he's already disrupted to the point of needing intervention) that it's hard to see how it could be an effective deterrent even in principle. It needs to be reconsidered. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Noting that existing sanction is stated to be "revisited and reverted" if concerns are raised. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, I think everyone's simply seeking what they feel to be the most effective solution to some long-standing problems. TParis, if contrary to your summation you do not wish to allow any reconsideration, that's fine; however, let's not criticize those who merely have concerns/questions, or who ask for the reconsideration you offered. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by (In ictu oculi)[edit]

After a review of the diffs offered this request appears to be verging on frivolous. "So we're done. Or fix it way Huwmanbeing suggests, even though you mis-parse it. " is a example of personalization? What if it was mis-parsed, how then does someone note something is mis-parsed without saying it? This does not deserve any result action. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, which some may not consider relevant, but I personally consider is Dicklyon has a 59.29% article contribution vs 3.29% WikipediaTalk contribution, a very healthy balance in contributing to article space rather than making/changing rules for others to follow. There are one or two frequent WikipediaTalk (inc MOS) contributors who barely contribute to article space. There's something not very balanced in that kind of diet. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Glrx[edit]

This filing seems to be another sad episode in a long running dispute. I've come across bits and pieces in the past, and have looked at the material above and comments by Gatoclass below.

I'm not a MOS warrior, I don't go around enforcing MOS, but I try to follow the endash rules, I have corrected some edits to follow MOS (I usually let the 'bots do it), and I have renamed some articles to use MOS-preferred punctuation. My editing has crossed paths with Dicklyon on several electronics articles as recently as today with Talk:Cat's-whisker detector. In those technical articles, I've been impressed with Dicklyon's research, argument, and clarity. I have not had similar interactions with Apteva or Born2Cycle. Generally, I stay far away from MOS debate.

I see no reason to sanction Dicklyon here. I do not see the complaints as being significant. Some complaints were about Dicklyon maintaining his own talk page (the "noise" edit comment while deleting some Apteva posts), and some complaints seem to seek a gag order (only discuss an editor's past history on his talk page). Ad hominem arguments should be avoided, but comments that attempt to accurately characterize an editor's global position seem fair game; unfortunately they can also come across as dismissive. Dicklyon may not be 100% civil, but I don't see A Quest for Knowledge's examples as worthy of sanctions. I'm not happy with Dicklyon's "Only YOU can prevent forest fires" comment, but otherwise his comments here are reasonable. I'd like Dicklyon to be a bit more diplomatic when engaging difficult editors, but that should not mean he cannot demand contrary sources.

Gatoclass proposes a one month topic ban on page move discussions for B2C. There was an earlier discussion (B2C needs to display higher tolerance of other editors) that TP closed. That discussion had support for OPTION A (complete ban on page move discussions) and OPTION B (ban that limits interaction on page move discussions); many supported B first and then A if B fails to work. TP's remedy ignored A and B and laid out a case-by-case warning with modest block for subsequent misbehavior in that case; TP was also concerned about bias in the commenters. My problem with TP's remedy is that it is not a restriction until somebody complains to an admin, so there's no penalty for B2C testing the limits. Gatoclass is proposing OPTION A with an expiration in one month. Gatoclass also worries that the proposed topic ban on page moves may not be general enough, but I don't see a pressing need to tailor something more general. I'd point to B2C's earlier promise about better behavior and ask him to follow it. I hope there is no more trouble down the road, but if there is, it can be addressed then. However, I think there was more support for an indeterminate OPTION B: B2C may comment once (or twice) on page move discussions. That seems the better option; it does not unduly restrict B2C's participation in page moves but would avoid extended debate; it would not have the fuzziness of debate until there's an objection.

I'm clueless about what to do with Apteva. Apteva is sensitive about several issues, but that sensitivity is not something than can be remedied here. Some of that sensitivity can be understood. Taking action on that sensitivity is the thing that needs to be curtailed. Apteva may not like something, but that does not mean Apteva should act on it. For example, I wish this current enforcement action did not happen. Apteva's request for a one month block on Dicklyon is not narrowly tailored for the perceived conduct nor is it of appropriate length. In contrast, Dicklyon's suggestion of amending the January topic ban is narrowly tailored (but goes beyond the just punctuation discussion). I'm not sure I'd include all of MOS; the extension might include just capitalization; there was a diff about capitalization. However, I have an incomplete view of Apteva editing. Gatoclass's diffs below are a mixed bag for me. The capitalization argument is a bit pointy, but the Suicide-of-X comments do not seem too far out of line (I'm am mystified why Suicide-of-X or Al Capone should be addressed at BLP). Consequently, I do not know what to do. Glrx (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by MelanieN[edit]

FYI about B2C: there were several people who cautioned him on his talk page or were considering reporting him for reverting to his old editing habits at the Suicide of Kelly Youmans discussion. Among other things, he twice characterized opinions he didn't agree with as "ridiculous"; he twice hid comments by others (I restored the second set); and he asked the same question seven times, five of them in boldface, even though the question had been directly responded to at least three times (by Joe Decker, tryptofish, and myself). Sorry, I am traveling and posting via iPhone so cannot post diffs. MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

To TP: one thing I never understood about your closure (which I praised as appropriately moderate) was how are we supposed to find an uninvolved admin to report a problem to? I at first thought it should be you, but you said no. Do we cherry pick an admin that we are familiar with? Do we pick a name at random from category:administrators? Do we post at AN asking for someone? I'm not being argumentative, I really didn't and don't know how to proceed. MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I think TP is correct that it would be unfair to impose a ban on B2C at this point, since B2C felt he was operating under the terms of TP's closure of the previous AN. On the other hand, it's clear that B2C was the only one who understood those terms. So he felt free to ignore suggestions and cautions from everyone who wasn't an "uninvolved administrator", while continuing his problematic editing unhindered for a week. For the rest of us, the procedure turned out to be unexpectedly awkward in practice. In effect, those who interact with B2C are made responsible for enforcing the sanctions. Every time he starts getting tendentious we have to run and find an admin (presumably a different admin each time), who then has to spend half an hour getting up to speed on the situation. And if a given person seeks help regarding B2C more than once or twice, they could be accused of harrassing him. That's why I did not want to report this latest case, blatant as it was - because I was the one who took him to AN last time. This was the first test of TP's closure (or at least the first I am aware of; I don't follow B2C around to see what he is doing) and it definitely exposed some weaknesses in the system. --MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Kumioko[edit]

That's nothing more than using a legalese justification to do the same thing but justifying it in a different way. Either way, as Dianna points out, at this point its still a waste of time. Its punitive rather than preventative plain and simple. Kumioko (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Since someone took it upon then selves to move my comments up here and isolate them from the discussion below so my comments now make no sense I need to clarify. The above comments were in relation to the comments by Dianna below. But in reference to the case in general sanctions or a ban at this point is a waste of the community's time. The problem has already been resolved and closed. No further action at this point is necessary and this ongoing case is merely a drag on the limited resources of the community. I would also add that the discussion below that seems to indicate an increase in the Arbcom's scope to encompass the MOS needs to be vetted to a larger audience and not buried in another discussion to increase the Arbcoms's scope through "common law" scope creep. Kumioko (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh now I see what happened, here. Kumioko (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Moving this from below because I am not an admin (and there is no us and them mentality?) and this makes the discussion far more complicated and easier to ignore comments. Gatoclass, that is almost exactly what should happen. There should be a couple warnings and then escalating blocks as appropriate. If that doesn't work, then we can move to a sanction or topic ban, not before. We need to let the process be the process and not throw it out the window whenever we choose. Kumioko (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Dicklyon[edit]

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

Some of Dicklyon's comments are less than ideal, but I don't think them serious enough to warrant a sanction, IMO they might at most merit a reminder. On the other hand, I can to some extent sympathize with his exasperation, having read some of the discussion at Talk:Suicide of Kelly Yeomans, where Born2cycle's repeated advocacy of a page move request that was rejected by a five to one majority might itself be considered disruptive. As for the proposal to amend Apteva's topic ban, I would have to look at that in more detail before expressing an opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Having taken a look through some of the earlier discussions (it's hardly possible to read them all since there are so many) it seems to me there is a solid case to be made for a sanction against Born2cycle for the continuation of his well documented, disruptive argumentativeness[86][87][88][89] at Talk:Suicide of Kelly Yeomans, and for a broadening of the existing sanction against Apteva. What I'm struggling to decide on is the scope of such sanctions. For Born2cycle, I am inclined to propose a one-month topic ban on all page move discussions, with escalating bans for future breaches, but I'm not sure if a ban on page move discussions alone will be sufficiently broad. For Apteva, I am seeing disturbing parallels in some of his recent edits[90][91] with the types of arguments, and the intransigence, that got him community banned from certain types of MOS-related punctuation discussions,[92] indicating that a broader ban may be necessary, but where does one draw the line? MOS relates in one way or another to almost every aspect of editing, so an undifferentiated ban may be impractical, but the current ban is beginning to look too narrow. I am still considering these issues, but in the meantime I would appreciate some input from other users on the same. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Since Seraphimblade imposed the original topic ban on Apteva, I have asked for his opinion on its scope. He seems not to be very active lately however, and we can't keep this request open indefinitely, so if he hasn't replied in the next couple of days I will move forward on this request regardless. Gatoclass (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Seraphimblade has not been active in some time, but I think his comment here is relevant to the current proceedings. Apteva apparently believes that the RfC and sanctions already imposed upon him or her are some sort of mistake—I've seen no suggestion at all that Apteva takes any kind of responsibility for problems others have with his/her approach to discussions. When a topic ban is imposed, the expectation is that the person disengage entirely from the problematic area. It's kind of a last resort in the hopes that a site ban is not needed. It is not an invitation to wikilawyer around the topic area in the way that Apteva has continued to do. The diffs noted by Dicklyon and by Gatoclass show that the same kinds of problem persist, and therefore that a broader topic ban at minimum is needed. One option is the one proposed by Dicklyon; another is to add an additional ban, something along the lines of: "Apteva is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style or policy about article titles" (as was imposed upon PManderson in the case cited). I broadly agree with Gatoclass's comments, not just about Apteva but about Dicklyon and Born2cycle as well. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I too see little evidence that Apteva has conceded an issue with his past behaviour, indeed he appears to be every bit as insistent on his correctness as before. However, he has indicated on my talk page that he no longer "keep[s] repeating myself as I once did",[93] which sounds like a step forward. Nor has a great deal of evidence been presented of recent misconduct on Apteva's part, or of a wider MOS problem. So although I too have considered a broad MOS ban, I'm not sure it would be necessary at this point; I'm inclined to think that a broadening of the topic ban to include the clause proposed by Dicklyon might be sufficient at this stage. If that changes, a broader ban can always be imposed at a later date. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Apteva appears somewhat persistent/repetitive in this AE request, although on the whole there does seem to be a step forward as you note. Certainly a less broad topic ban would be preferable if it can achieve the results. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 12:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I am in the process of summarizing the evidence presented above and will post it along with my conclusions shortly. Gatoclass (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, to summarize:

  • Born2cycle made 69 comments over the course of ten days at Talk:Suicide of Kelly Yeomans - almost as many comments as the next three contributors combined.[94] In addition to reopening a recently closed RM discussion (which I think he was entitled to do in the circumstances) he also initiated three separate discussion sub-threads and participated heavily in a fourth; this in a discussion where the consensus was clearly and overwhelmingly against his POV. Born2cycle states in his evidence regarding that discussion that If I had been told my behavior was problematic I would have stopped, but several users expressed frustration, some on multiple occasions, with his tactics (sample: [95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103]) and B2c not only did not stop, he was still proposing to continue the discussion a few hours before it was closed.[104] In light of his previous warnings and pledges, I therefore propose to ban Born2cycle for one month from RM-related discussions.
  • Due to concerns raised above and in earlier discussions that Apteva is breaching their ban by other means, I propose to clarify the scope of the ban by broadening it in line with the proposal outlined in earlier discussions, namely to add the clause and from advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles. Also, I think Apteva is entitled to some clarity regarding the circumstances by which he can appeal the original ban. I therefore propose that they be permitted to appeal the ban six months from the date it was imposed, or 6 July, and every six months thereafter. Any such appeal should I think be lodged at WP:AN rather than here at AE since the original ban was imposed by the community; Apteva is of course entitled to appeal the broadening of the ban proposed here (assuming it is implemented) in accordance with normal AE practice.
  • Regarding the charges against Dicklyon, I think it should be clarified that merely employing the words "you" and "your argument" etc do not constitute meaningful "comment on contributor" and are not actionable here; nor are occasional references to a user's previous history of discussion so long as such referrals are relevant to the discussion at hand and not excessive, disruptive, or objectionable in other ways. While some of Dicklyon's comments have clearly had an undertone of hostility, there has been a degree of provocation in the past which mitigates those responses to a degree. I think a certain degree of robustness in discussion must be accepted or we will end up encouraging WP:GAMING of the relevant policies. I therefore propose to post a reminder rather than warning to Dicklyon on this occasion.

In accordance with my usual practice, I will leave these proposals on the table for 24 hours, after which I will implement them if there have been no objections from uninvolved admins. Gatoclass (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I object to the proposed one-month topic ban on User:Born2cycle. This is far beyond the scope of the remedy devised by User:TParis on the 20th of February, which read, in part, "An uninvolved admin may ban [B2C] from a particular discussion he is involved in on a case by case basis after a warning that can be enforced with a block between 24 hours and the duration of the discussion he is disruptive in. This includes discussions about the close of a move or article titles discussion anywhere on Wikipedia". A user came to my talk page while the talk page discussion was in the process of being closed, and I declined to take any action against B2C at that time, because by the time I arrived at Talk:Suicide of Kelly Yeomans the discussion had been closed for 15 minutes and the remedy seemed punitive even at that point. So a one-month topic ban issued two weeks after the fact makes no sense to me. -- Dianna (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
MOS now comes under the purview of Arbcom discretionary sanctions, this is a new case and we are under no obligation here to endorse or follow earlier remedies imposed at other venues. I did not follow TParis' sanction proposal because I consider it to be ineffective, the object should be to get B2c to self-regulate his behaviour in the first place, not to leave it to admins and other users to regulate it for him. Additionally, TParis' remedy was unilateral and did not reflect the consensus expressed at the actual AN/I discussion which was 20 in favour of option A/B versus 5 for some other solution. Option A was for the imposition of topic bans, option B was for a restriction on the number of posts made by B2c in any page move discussion, and as a first choice option A received 11 !votes versus 9 for option B. In short, the sanction I have proposed reflects the majority view at the AN/I discussion (as well as that at a previous discussion) so I believe it has the clear endorsement of the community which cannot be said for TParis' novel remedy.
Additionally, I cannot agree that a sanction imposed at this point would be "punitive" because the discussion has already been closed; closure of a discussion has no bearing on whether or not the conduct of involved users is sanctionable. I might add that I don't do "punitive"; sanctions in my view are remedial: they are a means of encouraging disruptive users to modify their behaviour and/or removing disruptive influences for the benefit of the community at large. I think it's clear in this instance that Born2cycle is still not getting the message and that a remedial sanction is therefore an appropriate next step. Gatoclass (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I haven't examined the case and can't therefore comment on most proposed sanctions, but at first glance I find a sanction like "[banned] from advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles" inadvisable because it is not content-neutral. The arbitration process, and admins generally, have no authority over content issues, including over the question as to how we apply the MOS to content. We must therefore not enact sanctions that ban a user from voicing a particular opinion. But, if their conduct in discussions about this topic is deficient, we can ban them from discussing the topic altogether, irrespective of the opinions they put forward.  Sandstein  06:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
[I]f their conduct in discussions about this topic is deficient - yes I think that's the point here. We are not taking a stand on the content issue; the proposed sanction is merely a reflection of the community's view that this particular user has been disruptive in discussions relating to that content issue. Gatoclass (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Gatoclass, your proposal did not have consensus at the previous ANI discussion at all. If you read the comments, and not the !votes, you'll see that there was a strong consensus that B2C is an expert on the subject and a topic ban would harm Wikipedia by depriving us of his expertise. I'd suggest that you give the 'novel remedy' a try before casting it off as ineffective. Has any admin warned B2C to not participate in a discussion and he has ignored that warning? Can it be demonstrated? If not, then why are we even calling it a failure. It hasn't failed, ya'all have.--v/r - TP 13:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
TParis, the issue I have with your remedy is that the only effective check on B2c's disruption is a warning from an administrator for each and every discussion in which he becomes disruptive, followed by a brief block if he fails to heed the warning. This is not a disincentive to excessive posting at all, because the user in question can effectively post as frequently as he likes in any given discussion until receiving a warning from an administrator, after which he can repeat the same in the next discussion, and the next after that, and so on, without ever having to modify his behaviour or risk an actual sanction. Gatoclass (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
You dont have to explain my own idea to me, I already know you dont comprehend it. But dont sanction a guy because he followed it and all others failed to use it to their advantage. The idea gives the community a great tool and because you like traditional solutions you're tossing this one out before you tried it and punishing someone for not following your opinion of how he should have been topic banned in that discussion despite following the direction he was given. Not his fault that no one used the sanction.--v/r - TP 18:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
@Huwmanbeing & Omnedon both: Did anyone ask an uninvolved admin during the course of any of these discussions? I've seen only a single example and it was brought up after the RM closed. Are there others I am unaware of where someone has brought it to the attention of an uninvolved admin during the week long process? I never said anyone had to bear B2C's behaviors to exhaustion, anyone could ask for admin attention on day 1 if it became an issue. If the answer is no, then you've not even tried it. You've assumed the "uninvolved admins" gnome around or magically read your minds through the interwebs and know where our attention is needed. Petitioning for uninvolved admins to take uninvolved admin actions is not canvassing. You're not stacking votes or slanting discussions by doing it, you're enforcing behavioral guidelines. Don't place silly arbitrary constraints on yourself and then blame someone else (me) because you refused to give the idea a try.--v/r - TP 21:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Omnedon: Who in the world ever told you that you couldn't? I shouldn't have to disprove a nonexistant. Do I have to tell you that there is no rule against putting purple food coloring in your jello as well? You placed an arbitrary self-imposed rule on yourself against contacting an uninvolved administrator and it was silly at that. No one else placed that restriction on you. So yes, it is a silly arbitrary constraint that holds no weight. At any time, you are allowed to ask an administrator to help you with administrative tasks without violating WP:CANVASS. Beware of not violating WP:FORUMSHOP though.--v/r - TP 22:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Omnedon: It's not my responsibility to summarize every Wikipedia policy and guideline and how it pertains to a particular sanction. Again, nothing was ever stopping you from asking for an uninvolved administrator except for you. So until you actually try the sanction, I'm going to write your objections off as prejudicial. Dislike it all you want, but the facts are the facts: you've yet to even try it and you can't prove it wouldn't work if given a shot. Try it once or twice and if it doesn't work, I'll be much more amiable to trying something harsher and more traditional like standard topic bans or worse.--v/r - TP 23:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I can't help that no one thought to raise the issue to an uninvolved admin until after it was closed. I never said you had to wait 5, 6, or even 7 days. Raise it to an admin after two hours for all I care. The instructions were clear enough. I've even now made them even clearer. I'm sure you all have the best of intentions as well, but you're also involved with B2C and clearly not his biggest fan so unless Gatoclass wants to take unilateral action, using AE authority to 'trump' another admin, then that's his call and I'd shake my head and wash my hands of it. But as another uninvolved admin, I fail to see effort made by B2C's opponents to actually use the tool I crafted for them. So I'm not sure why you're even still arguing when the point still stands that it hasn't been tried. What are you trying to prove still? You keep saying it's ineffective and my question is: when has it been tried?--v/r - TP 00:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Noting that that statement was three months ago and you have had ample opportunity to use it and have not. The issue was visited here, you're late to the party. I'm not going to revert a close that is 3 months old. That'd be like pulling the rug out from under B2C so you can slap a harsher sanction on him ex post facto and then act on it as if he's been under this harsher sanction all along. You're trying to shift responsibility to him for your lack of attention to detail on the sanction. I don't play by those shady tactics. You want a sanction, get consensus here. But acknowledge the fact that you failed to use the tool given to you, and not that the tool itself failed, and then proceed to change it on honest terms.--v/r - TP 12:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
MelanieN: It was suggested that I remain uninvolved for just these situations. All of the ideas you presented for finding an admin are good. I think a polite talk page message to one you are familiar with, or one whom B2C is familiar with, is the best course. Also, admins who participate in dispute resolution and here at arbitration enforcement are also a good bet; they have the skills for dealing with these sorts of conflicts. If you ask an admin to get involved, the worst they can say is "No".--v/r - TP 20:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
@Huwmanbeing: Did you actually read my comments to you? Changing the verdict now after three months is dishonest and unethical. The comment about revisiting the matter was under the assumption 'within a reasonable time limit' is common sense.--v/r - TP 22:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

As TParis notes, I am entitled to close this request with a unilateral topic ban for Born2cycle under authority of discretionary sanctions, but am reluctant to do so when lacking a majority in favour in this section. Also, I think Melanie makes a worthwhile point that Born2cycle believed per TParis' remedy that he was permitted to continue posting until warned by an administrator - a conclusion that is probably not entirely indefensible, though I still think he should have taken heed of the complaints from other users much earlier. In light of these circumstances, however, I am going to downgrade the remedy for Born2cycle from a topic ban to a warning on this occasion. Born2cycle must understand from this point however that he has already had the requisite warning for administrative action under ARBCOM discretionary sanctions, and that any uninvolved administrator, acting unilaterally under authority of those sanctions or as a result of an AE request, may in future sanction him in any manner deemed appropriate for conduct deemed disruptive at WP:MOS- or WP:TITLE-related discussions or pages without further warning. Gatoclass (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nataev[edit]

Appeal declined. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Appealing user 
Nataev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Nataev (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Topic ban from the subject of Goldblum
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Salvio giuliano (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.

[105]

Statement by Nataev[edit]

I perfectly understand why I have been topic banned. I repeatedly violated BLP rules, even though I was warned multiple times. Therefore I believe the ban was well deserved. I apologize for repeatedly breaking the rules.

While I'm not interested in this particular subject, having a ban is bothering me very much. I feel like it's a bad mark on my record as a Wikipedia editor. Please take a look at my previous work to judge my work on Wikipedia.

I will avoid writing on the subject altogether. I will avoid breaching BLP rules in the future. I ask, in good faith, to have the ban lifted. I'm willing to comply with any demands that will help me have the ban lifted.

Note: Initially I didn't really understand how topic bans work. I thought topic bans technically block users from making any changes. That's why I made this test edit. At the time I didn't know this would constitute a breach of the ban. I thought I wouldn't be able to save this edit because I believed I had been technically blocked from making any changes on this topic. I apologize for this mistake.

I'm sorry if my statements were not very specific.
  1. I perfectly understand why I have been topic banned. I repeatedly violated BLP rules, even though I was warned multiple times. Therefore I believe the ban was well deserved.
  2. I want to appeal the ban because I see it as a bad mark on my record.
  3. I have no motivation to edit on this particular subject in the future. However, I will avoid breaking rules while editing BLP articles in the future.

Thank you. Nataev (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize to everyone, especially you, Nomoskedasticity. I'm determined not to get involved in such topics ever again. By now I understand that breaking BLP rules is a serious matter. I hope you will understand my concerns and help me get the ban lifted. Thanks, Nataev (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Salvio, the reason I kept writing even after I decided to withdraw was the continued responses of Goldblum. He just couldn't stop mentioning me and attacking me in his comments. That's why I felt obliged to respond. In fact if you take a look at his latest comments, he's now attacking others. See this. He's gonna fight tooth and nail to whitewash himself. I used to believe Wikipedia could be neutral. If you think about it, Wikipedia is for volunteers. You guys think you're in a position to discourage people from contributing. Well, so be it. I bet you can't find a single person, not one, who can write on the topics I can. Anyhow, I'm tired of admins' conceited, biased, and impartial comments. I'm leaving. Nataev (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Salvio giuliano[edit]

My problem is that Nataev repeatedly declared he intended to withdraw from the discussion, but then failed to so, continuing to attack Goldblum – examples: 1, 2, 3; here he writes "I wish I could be left out of this. [...] I leave it to them to decide where the article is biased or not.", but ten minutes later he writes this.

Had Nataev not continued to attack Goldblum in spite of his stated intention to ignore the scholar, I'd have ignored the thread, but since he continued, I felt a topic ban was necessary to stop disruption to the project.

In general, I usually support lifting a restriction, if the user in question undertakes to refrain from the behaviour which caused the sanction to be imposed in the first place; in this case, however, considering, as I've already said, that Nataev repeatedly told he'd stop discussing Goldblum, but kept on posting attacks nonetheless, I don't think it would be wise to accept his appeal. So, I suggest his request is declined. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity[edit]

This is the ANI discussion where Nataev made repeated BLP violations against the subject of an article. Nataev might be bothered by having a topic ban on record, but it was richly deserved and there's no reason at all to lift it; his repeated declarations that he is "not interested in this subject" are belied by his repeated posts about it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Iselilja[edit]

I don't know much about Nataev, as I first became aware of him when I became aware of the Amiram Goldblum article (which I watchlisted). Nataev's comment on Goldblum was obviously troubling (re:BLP), so I understand why the topic ban was placed. However, taken a look at the rest of Nataev's history here, I get the impression that he is a serious, no-drama user who has made valuable contributions. The Goldblum affair appears to be untypical, and my impression is that Nataev now just want to go back to no-drama constructive editing (or leave). There is a negative psychological effect of having a topic ban registered which I think should not be overlooked. Showing a bit of clemency, respect and trust even to people who have got themselves in trouble often gives better results - on Wikipedia as in real life - I believe. I would support lifting the topic ban provided Nataev clearly states that he won’t make any edits or comments concerning Goldblum on Wikipedia ever again. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by RolandR[edit]

Moved out of threaded discussion

Surely the above comment, too, is a breach of the topic ban. Not a good idea in an appeal against the ban! RolandR (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nataev[edit]

Result of the appeal by Nataev[edit]

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

I would decline the appeal. Nataev does not argue that the appealed sanction was procedurally or materially flawed, and indeed it does not appear to be in error at first glance. The appeal contains only vague generalities about WP:BLP, but does not indicate that Nataev understands how or why their actions violated that policy, and how (if unbanned) they will edit about this subject in a policy-compliant manner (see, by analogy, WP:GAB). We must therefore assume that the ban is (still) necessary to prevent violations of WP:BLP.  Sandstein  22:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am blocking Nataev for this violation of the topic ban (which cannot be excused as part of necessary dispute resolution in the context of this appeal, because the allegation of wrongdoing on the part of Amiram Goldblum was not necessary to argue this appeal). Without objection by uninvolved admins, given the direction this is going in, I think we can close this as declined soon.  Sandstein  10:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Closing as declined. If an editor declares he is leaving a topic and then keeps on going back to it we can't take him seriously. This edit where Nataev defends his description of Goldblum as an 'obscure, semi-literate scholar' should not give us much optimism about Nataev's editing of BLP articles. Note that this topic ban was issued by Salvio under WP:BLPSE and not ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

Declined since there is no clear, substantial and active consensus of uninvolved editors to lift TDA's one-way interaction ban with Mathsci. TDA retains the usual option of appealing to Arbcom by making a request for clarification. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Appealing user 
The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
One-way interaction ban with User:Mathsci imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive125#Zeromus1 & The Devil's Advocate, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
[106]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

Over the past six and a half months or so I have complied with this restriction despite my objections to the sanction in general and its one-way nature in particular. This has not been without challenge as several times I have been involved in discussions where Mathsci was involved, often after I became involved. Even when he has responded to something I have said I have avoided addressing, commenting on, or interacting with, Mathsci in any fashion. As it stands, not being able to discuss matters with him has hampered my ability to participate in certain processes. In particular, although Mathsci does not edit articles or talk pages explicitly concerning R&I, he continues to involve himself in its affairs through project and userspace. Occasionally, this means I am in a situation where a matter concerns my editing activity in that topic area, but my ability to address the matter is hampered by Mathsci's ability to comment and my inability to respond. I thus ask for the restriction to be lifted.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The Doncram case is an example of one of my points above. Mathsci's first comment in the case was to dispute one of my proposed findings. He then spent much of the case disputing my arguments. As a result, my ability to defend my statements was hampered because responding to his comments would have been a violation of my interaction ban. Some of the evidence he presented actually supported my position, but I was not able to point that out given the restriction.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The only talk I had of arbitration with Akuri consisted of me encouraging him not to pursue it and saying that, if my appeal failed, I would probably pursue it myself. Basically, I was saying that if an AE appeal failed that I would likely pursue an appeal to ArbCom.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

@Fozzie, MastCell's comments about "wiki-litigation" are misguided and shouldn't be given much weight. As it concerns R&I, I believe I have filed exactly three requests at noticeboards over the past year, not including this appeal, with each regarding separate issues. The "un-needed" part is purely subjective as said requests did touch on legitimate and substantive concerns that I and other editors had regarding a situation. Only one of those requests, the earliest one, directly concerned Mathsci. Generally, I take great care to only suggest taking action when I feel it is needed and prior to the interaction ban the worse thing I suggested for Mathsci is an admonishment. Despite what some say there is no imminent risk of me filing some massive request for action against Mathsci should the restriction be lifted. As long as he leaves me alone, or at least doesn't do anything extreme, I envision no reason why I would suggest any action against him. This has always been the case, including prior to the interaction ban.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

@KC, please move your comment out of the uninvolved administrator section. You are far from uninvolved regarding me or the R&I topic area.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as Tim's request, there are numerous instances of varying complexity, but some are straight-forward. On one occasion I commented in an ANI discussion regarding another editor and in response to what one editor said to me Mathsci made this remark accusing me of editing from a "race realist" perspective, with that phrase having an easter egg link to the article on scientific racism. Another incident involved me removing a personal attack made by a proxy IP and Mathsci immediately restoring it.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how the tone of two remarks to two people who are not Mathsci is relevant to my interaction ban with Mathsci. For the sake of convenience here is Mathsci's original statement.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 09:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci, WO is WO and Wikipedia is Wikipedia. Two separate sites. I would say that the notion I said anything seriously problematic about you there is not very good and you were the one who bumped that thread in the first place after ten days of inactivity. You also seem more than happy to talk to me there.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 08:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Timotheus Canens[edit]

I see no compelling reason to lift the restriction, and in fact have little doubt that the disruptive acrimonious interactions would recur if it were lifted. I do not regard the claim regarding the Doncram case, which is the only concrete example TDA cited, to be compelling; even assuming for the sake of argument that TDA could not have amplified their views on the nature of Orlady's interactions with Doncram without violating the interaction ban (a rather doubtful proposition), they could have easily submitted a rebuttal of Mathsci's comments to the Committee via email if they wanted to.

As to the one-way nature of the interaction ban, I think it would be a spectacularly bad idea to make it two-way six months after the original restriction was imposed without actual, concrete evidence that the one-way ban is not working. I'm open to reconsidering if there's some hard evidence of Mathsci inappropriately taking advantage of the one-way nature of interaction ban. Finding such evidence if there's actual misconduct shouldn't be hard; it's been six months. T. Canens (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci[edit]

I have completely modified my statement in the light of very recent events. I apologize to those that have referred to my previous presentation which is still accessible in the page history.

The main reason that The Devil's Advocate's (TDA) interaction ban should not be dropped is his recent championing of Akuri, repeating his championing of TrevelyanL85A2 (indefinitely blocked account, proxy-editing for Captain Occam) and Zeromus1 (a sockpuppet of the banned user Ferahgo the Assassin, Captain Occam's girlfriend). Akuri has now been blocked indefinitely by NuclearWarfare. TDA was completely aware that Akuri had out of the blue, with no prior knowledge of me, started making unprovoked personal attacks on me on WP:ANI. Nevertheless TDA lobbied for Akuri to be allowed to continue to edit and continued to have a close association with him. That indicates that TDA exercised extremely poor judgement. He has acted as an apologist for some of the most disruptive users connected with WP:ARBR&I. When TDA manages to have some prolonged period away from WP:ARBR&I editors that are blatantly engaged in continuing the campaigns of site-banned users, then his interaction ban should be reconsidered. The ban does not affect his normal editing in any way and will help prevent future repetition of this kind of gross misjudgement. His support for Akuri is undiminished even after NuclearWarfare's block.[107] If TDA's priority is still to wikilawyer about a disruption-only account such as Akuri's, then his conduct has not reformed and all the assurances he has given above are worthless. Mathsci (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

  • The 2 edits mentioned by TDA concern Apostle12 (NYB's proposed topic-ban) and Russavia (editing under the influence). There was also an enforcement request here by Russavia concerning Volunteer Marek. Both TDA and I made statements. TDA reverted an administrative action of Sandstein.[108]with the edit summary rmv distracting and unnecessary notices. I restored Sandstein's edits.[109] TDA called Sandstein an "officious little jerk" and a "petty tyrant" when warned not to reverse administrative actions.[110] He was later warned about making personal attacks by KillerChihuahua, which he removed [111] with the edit summary rmv petty nonsense. By contrast he was polite to Akuri while advising him on a strategy for requesting arbitration, some of it apparently concerning me.[112][113][114][115][116][117][118] Mathsci (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Over on the site wikipediocracy, TDA has made comments which undermine his assurances here. [119] The Devil's Advocate has argued here that his conduct has reformed. Nothing about his present conduct, including his continued support for the blocked user Akuri, with an agenda indistinguishable from that of the site-banned user Captain Occam, suggest that much has changed since October 2012. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • WO has some relevance for WP:ARBR&I, because the Captain Occam campaign on WP is actively promoted from there. Captain Occam used WO for passing "evidence" about me to Cla68 that was submitted on WP in December 2012. That posting was considered relevant by arbcom. Mathsci (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The arbitration committee has already spent large amounts of time discussing the interaction bans, which included at one point discussing an interaction ban with an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of a site-banned user (Ferahgo the Assassin). SirFozzie was one the main arbitrators to make general statements about one-way bans which were not supported by any evidence. At the moment, the most problematic thing that has happened was solved by blocking Akuri, whose unblock request was denied by AGK. Salvio has explained, without being specific, that the account might possibly be linked to users banned under WP:ARBR&I. Given the recent edits, it is becoming increasingly likely that Akuri is a sockpuppet of the site-banned editor Captain Occam. Meanwhile TDA continues supporting Akuri's requests to be unblocked. [120][121] In November he continued to communicate with Zeromus1/Ferahgo, quizzing the basis her block, after the block had become an arbcom block.[122][123][124] Arbitrators could theoretically discuss whether collaborating with sockpuppets or meatpuppets of site-banned users with an attack-only agenda is a good thing or not. Only one or two users have done so and they are amongst those with interaction bans. Moreover arbitrators/checkusers have proceeded directly to perform their own investigations and blocks of problematic editors (Zeromus1, Mors Martell, Akuri), avoiding time-consuming cases. Arbitrators should only be asked to look at something if there is a problem and at the moment there isn't. Mathsci (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Akuri[edit]

I don't know if I am involved or not. I was not intending to comment here, but now that Mathsci has brought me up I should clarify something about my comment to D. Lazard.

Regarding the possibility of requesting arbitration about Mathsci, here is what SilkTork said in December: [125]

"I think we need a full case to look carefully into all the issues here. We have a problem which is not being resolved, and motions are perhaps not the appropriate way of gathering evidence and finding a solution - especially when the Committee is divided. If the community are concerned enough about the trolling of Mathsci, and about the impact the fall out from that is having, someone will no doubt put forward a case request in the new year. It may well be that those of us who are involved in arbitration are getting a distorted view of this, and we are seeing it as more disruptive than it is; it is up to the community to let us know how disruptive the matter actually is."

Here is what HersFold said in the same discussion. [126]

"I'm now thinking a case may be necessary as well. This does seem to be extending quite a good bit beyond what these motions could handle, and it's turning into a muddled mess. However, such a request may be better left until after new year's so we can have some fresher eyes looking at it."

If The Devil's Advocate or I decides to make an arbitration request about Mathsci, it will be because arbitrators are expecting someone to make one. It's incredibly misleading to claim there is something wrong with contemplating making a request that arbitrators have already said they are expecting, or that this is a reason to not lift the interaction ban. But maybe a case won't be needed. We're at AE already, and anything that can be resolved here won't need arbitration. Akuri (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

Statement by Momento[edit]

I can't recall editing with any of the above or the articles and discussions mentioned. I have simply read what The Devil's Advocate and Mathsci have said and followed the links. It appears that TDA has faithfully adhered to his sanction for six months and it should be lifted. MOMENTO 23:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Watching this discussion unfold confirms my view that TDA's appeal should be lifted. This argument is bigger than an interaction ban appeal and continuing this sanction is not going to solve it. Six months is more than enough to make a point, further sanctioning is unnecessarily punitive. MOMENTO 02:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Fairness shouldn't be a popularity contest. TDA has honoured his "one way" sanction for six months, that's enough. All the arguments about what he might do or has done elsewhere are irrelevant. He's served his time.MOMENTO 23:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by DavidLeighEllis[edit]

Asymmetrical interaction bans seem inherently problematic, and should seldom be imposed. It's no surprise that this one is causing trouble. Either of the two obvious remedies for this problem may be implemented. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by IRWolfie-[edit]

I don't see what has changed or why this should be overturned, nor has any reason been provided except claiming that it is inconvenient. If it's inconvenient, well that's just too bad. I think Mathsci's comments seems to offer factual, well considered and relevant points; nothing has changed so why should it be overturned? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

@Collect an ad hom isn't fallacious if it provides reasoning for why another persons underlying motives are relevant, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Collect[edit]

One-way interaction bans have never made a great deal of sense, and continue to make little sense. I rather believe I have said this in the past, and see no reason to iterate a long section (well -- actually they were short), but the fact remains - one way bans are an open invitation to see Game theory at work. All one way bans should simply be made mutual by motion. Collect (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

@MS I made no comment here about you at all -- and I find your ad hom a tad disturbing and off-topic on this page, and to be a comment which likely ought to be removed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC) @MS apologies are best made directly to the editors whom you need to apologize to, and not as a modest side comment. Collect (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC) @IRW - I suggest that the outre apology makes your excuses moot. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Keithbob[edit]

I have had a few minor interactions with both Mathsci and TDA but I have no clear opinion on the quality of their interactions nor knowledge of the history of their entanglements. However, I am opposed to one-sided interactions bans and TDA appears to have honored this ban despite his/her objections (as they should) and under sometimes challenging circumstances (like the Doncam ArbCom in which I participated) and I think the ban should either be lifted or made into a two-way ban.--KeithbobTalk 15:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell[edit]

If this interaction ban is lifted, the most likely outcomes will be an increase in the already substantial time that TDA devotes to wiki-litigation, and an increase in the number of disputatious individuals active in the R&I arena. Neither prospect seems to hold clear benefit to the encyclopedia. MastCell Talk 16:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by IP[edit]

One-way interaction bans are currently allowed by policy. An appeal to 'upgrade' a one-way iban to two way on the basis that one ways are unfair was already rejected by arbcom (though it did get some support). As in that instance, AE should not now consider the mere existence of a one-way iban grounds for an appeal as it is not AE's place to declare one-way ibans against policy.

If editors have an issue with one-way ibans they need to take it to the appropriate venue such as the policy page itself or a policy RFC of some sort.

No comment on the validity of the appeal per other grounds. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Beyond My Ken[edit]

@SirFozzie: While I have sympathy for your dislike of one-way bans, as they superficially seem inherently unfair, I would urge you not to act on the basis of your general feelings, and instead concentrate on the specifics of this case. Asymmetric sanctions are hardly unusual: think of the many ArbCom cases where one party is topic banned while the opposing party is simply warned. Such solutions become necessary when the behavior of one party contributes substantially more to the disruption than does the behavior of the other. A one-way interaction ban is no different, and this one was the result of an inherent asymmetry in the behaviors of TDA and Mathsci. I think that it's actually a rather nuanced solution, while the removal of the IBan would empower TDA and his allies in their obvious campaign of harrassment and wikilawyering against Mathsci. Not only would such a solution be unfair to the party who is less responsible for the situation, but it would, in my view, be unwise as well, and will almost certainly lead to further disruption. I urge you to reconsider your stance. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge[edit]

I'm not a fan of one-way interaction bans especially when both sides have exhibited problematic behavior. Overall, I have great respect for the AE process and the admins who volunteer to help handle Wikipedia's most troublesome disputes. I don't envy the difficult work that you have, and I commend you all for the hard work that you do. However, I feel this is one of those areas where AE did not handle the situation in the best possible way. There was problematic conduct on multiple fronts, but the sanctions were not applied evenly. Be that as it may, the easiest solution, and the one that will cause the least problems for Wikipedia in general is to change the interaction ban to two ways. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by MONGO[edit]

Completely concur with Mastcell...only since I'm just a MONGO, I had to look disputatious up...and it says "fond of having heated arguments". That sums it up. With all due respect to TDA, I do want to add that his arguments do oftentimes have validity, it's just that he oftentimes doesn't seem to know that there is more to do here than argue.--MONGO 23:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Sjones23[edit]

I concur with Mastcell as well. Given that the lifting of the ban may allow TDA and his allies to wage their campaign on harassment against Mathsci, I think that TDA, while still being a longtime and valuable contributor, sometimes does not even know if there is nothing more to do than get involved in contentious confrontations. Harassment has not, will not and should not be tolerated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Lukeno94[edit]

I don't, personally, agree with one-way IBANs. That aside, TDA has followed it for 6 months, and if Mathsci is able to wander into a discussion where TDA has already been highly involved, with TDA then having to partially withdraw from the debate (ie, partial because they can't address Mathsci), is that really constructive and/or helpful for anyone? I'd say repeal the IBAN, with a strict warning that anything that appears to be harassment from TDA towards Mathsci would very quickly land them sanctions. I also feel the need to note, as others have, that both editors are generally good ones, but both can get a bit heated. Certainly neither is better than the other, and thus, a one-way interaction ban isn't warranted. Either apply it as a two-way, or bin it altogether. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Looking at Mathsci's comments, I think that a 2-way IBAN is definitely warranted. Mathsci is allowed, at present, to say absolutely anything they want about TDA, and generally belittle them - yet TDA can't respond. IBAN the pair of them, get this charade over with. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Apteva[edit]

No one is allowed to belittle anyone, anywhere, for any reason. There is an ongoing RfC about how to enforce incivility, but from WP:NPA "Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor." Editors do not, or should not, be responding to other editors in discussions. The response is to what was said, and is directed, correctly, only to the group, not to the editor. This is consensus 101. There are two methods of group decision making, parliamentary and consensus. Neither allow commenting to or about other contributors. From Roberts Rules of Order (summarized) "All remarks must be directed to the Chair. Remarks must be courteous in language and deportment - avoid all personalities, never allude to others by name or to motives!"[127] With consensus decision making, the chair is the group, and the same rule applies: Direct all comments to the group, all remarks must be courteous, avoid all personalities, and never allude to others by name or by motive (unless the discussion is about that editor). Apteva (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the claim that one-way interaction bans are inherently unfair. Especially when it turns out that it may hinder article discussion, as one party can feel free to challenge the other's posts and the other person cannot reply without violating their interaction ban. My inclination off hand is to lift the interaction ban, with a reminder that a return to unneeded "wiki-litigation" (as someone has said above would likely see a very low bar to a dual interaction or one-way interaction ban reinstated. SirFozzie (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest that since there is not a true consensus either way (to sustain the interaction ban, or to remove it), that this would be a ready-made opportunity to ask the Committee to review this interaction ban. SirFozzie (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Mathsci, but asking the Committee to review a no consensus decision at AE is explicitly allowed. As for the rest of your comment, you may see no problem with the current situation,but that is because it is to your benefit to not see a problem here. SirFozzie (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Works for me, Ed. SirFozzie (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Without taking a position, I note that there are three possible outcomes. The one way ban stands, the ban is lifted, the ban is made two way. I see zero argument for making it two way, as "it is inherently unfair" holds no water with me. If one party is abusing the privilege, we give one way bans. We do not give two way bans for the purpose of appearing "even handed" in an uneven situation;; just as judges do not give restraining orders to both the stalker and the stalkee. TDA's argument for lifting seems to be "I have complied, even when it was hard, but now I want to be able to answer back." Kudos to TDA, but is that a rationale for lifting? Has there been any instance where the ban has prevented TDA from meaningful contribution, or stating his position, etc? Regarding the Domcram case, surely TDA could have made a statement without referencing Mathsci or his post? I would like input from other admins here; I myself would not find such a violation, but if they would, that needs to be considered. If Mathsci were to say "no diffs have been provided" and TDA were to then, without addressing Mathsci directly, post some diffs, would that be considered "gaming" or otherwise violating? And finally, I note we have yet to hear from T. Canens, and I would prefer to hear his thoughts prior to any decision being made here. KillerChihuahua 22:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
If the appeal had to be closed now, it lacks a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" to overturn T. Canen's one-way interaction ban. Roughly speaking there are five uninvolved editors who favor lifting TDA's ban or making it two-way and six editors who favor keeping the one-way ban as it is. KC has left a comment in the admin section but has stated that she is not taking a position, so no vote from her. Unless others favor a delay, the appeal should be closed soon as declined. A couple of people have suggested ways for TDA to respond to arguments made by Mathsci in indirect ways that would be consistent with the ban, but it is unclear whether future admins would consider these ideas to be valid loopholes, and there was no consensus here on their validity. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
@SirFozzie: It is agreed that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Reversal of enforcement actions allows the parties to refer an unclear result from AE to the committee by a request for clarification. Such an option makes little practical difference to TDA since he could appeal from AE to the committee anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Just to piggyback on that a bit: Yes, the parties may appeal, and for that reason, I don't think there's any need for the admins at AE to do so. It ought to be left up TDA whether he wants to pursue it to that level or cease appealing. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
How about closing this with the following text: "There is no clear, substantial and active consensus of uninvolved editors here at AE to lift the one-way interaction ban on TDA. He retains the usual option of appealing to Arbcom." EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Now closing since SirFozzie accepts the proposed text, and Heimstern supports the general idea. There is no clear, substantial and active consensus of uninvolved editors here at AE to lift TDA's one-way interaction ban from Mathsci. TDA retains the usual option of appealing to Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

D.Lazard[edit]

Consensus is that this report is not actionable. Fut.Perf. 15:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning D.Lazard[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Mathsci (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
D.Lazard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBR&I, motion concerning disruption by sockpuppets of Echigo mole [128]
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [129] off-topic statement posted here after trolling by Echigo mole ipsock [130], advised by Sandstein [131]
  2. [132][133][134] contests block even after unblock declined by The Bushranger and warnings from Anthony Bradbury
  3. [135][136] contests block when Echigo sock makes second unblock request declined by Anthony Bradbury with explanation on D.Lazard's talk page, which D.Lazard rejects
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 

Warned in several places, most recently on his user talk page[137][138]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This is an unusual request for AE. It was precipitated by D.Lazard's tendentious manner of dealing with a long term community banned wikihounder. This seems to be the best place to sort it out, since it has not worked elsewhere.

I started creating significant amounts of new content in mathematical articles related to Jordan algebras, a specialist graduate-level topic not much touched on wikipedia. Echigo mole socks have recently been created that have caused disruption around that specific topic and on WikiProject Mathematics. The most recent socks have included


as well as various ipsocks, most notably

These have already been reported at SPI, sometimes with a CU request, or at the WikiProject for open proxies when relevant. All have been blocked and all have edited similarly, with the usual tell-tale signs in their use of British English and their low levels of competence in mathematics. All the editing has been in coordination and some has spilled over into the latest WP:ARBR&I related sockpuppetry by Captain Occam (Akuri). D.Lazard has interrupted the previous unrelated AE appeal after trolling by the first IP sock above. He has picked out one of the socks Hyperbaric oxygen, with no discernible difference in editing patterns from the others, and repeatdely attempted to enable that sockpuppet. He has lobbied several times on their user talk page during two unblock requests both of which have been refused. He has been informed that the unblock requests were part of a stunt involving simutaneous unblock requests by Boodlepounce (denied) and the dormant previously blocked sock Ultra snozbarg (also denied). D.Lazard has refused to take into consideration the WP:LTA and the simultaneous coordinated socking. Since several administrators have handled events around Hyperbaric oxygen (Deskana, NativeForeigner, Anthony Bradbury, The Bushranger and Future Perfect at Sunrise), please could he now receive some kind of mild warning not to act as an enabler/apologist for a community banned wikihounder per the arbcom motion above? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

D.Lazard's command of English is unfortunately an impediment when it comes to determining sockpuppetry by Echigo mole. According to the autobiography he created on wikipedia, Jordan operator algebras lie completely outside his real-life mathematical expertise. A recent edit here on the WikiProject Mathematics noticeboard[139] was ill-advised. D.Lazard advertised this report there. The request was about his own conduct w.r.t. blatant sockpuppets of a highly disruptive banned editor. His posting there was a misuse of the WikiProject Mathematics noticeboard for CANVASSING against a long-term mathematics editor. Why is he doing this when the sockpuppetry is so blatant?
A Quest For Knowledge comes here with unclean hands. A while back on WP:ANI he drew attention to himself by initiating a thread which was essentially a gratuitous personal attack on me.[140] He started a second thread after that with the interesting header "I request that I be blocked", AQFK wrote,[141] "I refuse to be treated like crap. Can someone please block me? I do not wish to participate in this project any more." That was on 26 March not on 1 April. But AQFK should know as well as anybody else that if he's cried "wolf" once and been found out, he doesn't get a second chance. No matter how much alphabet soup he spits out. Mathsci (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[142]


Discussion concerning D.Lazard[edit]

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

Statement by D.Lazard[edit]

Mathsci request deserves an answer at two levels.

Immediate level: Mathsci asserts that I have violated the sanction concerning Echigo mole. IMO, this is wrong. Let us analyze the links to my edits that Mathsci provides

  • My post here ([68] if the numbering does not change): I apologize that it was a mistake, being off topic where it was posted. But, otherwise, I confirm everything that I have written there. In any case, I do not see any relation with WP:ARBR&I motion.
  • [71] is a comment to the admin who should examine a unblock request by Hyperbaric oxygen. In this post, as well as in all the other posts provided by Mathsci, I precise that I agree with the ban of the sockpuppets, but that, as far as I know, the identification of Hyperbaric oxygen as a sockpuppet relies only on Mathsci allegations, which, IMHO, need further investigation.
  • [75] is an answer to Anthony Bradbury who has warned me about supporting banned users. I answered that I do not support banned users but that I contest the identification of Hyperbaric oxygen as a sockpuppet.
  • The three other links ([72], [73] and [74]) are answers to Mathsci's disruptive posts in which he attacks my above comments (sometimes, with personal attacks), like if these posts were addressed to him (I call disruptive these Mathsci's posts, because the administrators to whom they were addressed are perfectly able to answer themselves, if needed).

To conclude on Hyperbaric oxygen,[143], he never did any disruptive edit (except, after bloking, using a IP connexion for asking help to other editors); good faith has never been credited to him, and he had the bad chance to have edited articles in an area of mathematics that Matsci considers as owned by him (see below).

Higher level: In what precedes, I have implicitly accused Mathsci to gaming the system against me and Hyperbaric oxygen. We are not the only target of this kind of action. In fact, as soon as some new user edits some article in the area of Jordan algebra that he consider as owned by him, he accuses this user to be a sockpuppet of Echigo mole. If some established user, who can not been suspected of sockpuppetry, edits his articles or disagree with him on talk pages, he uses against him flames, threats, personal attacks and authoritative arguments (like " I am among the main content contributors to mathematics articles on wikipedia" [144], [145][146]

This behavior has pushed a good mathematics editor (User: Deltahedron) to retire from WP [147]. As there are too few good mathematics editors in WP, this is a significant loss for WP:WikiProject Mathematics. This disruptive behavior in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics is the origin of my interest in Mathsci activity

About me: First of all, I apologize for my bad English, which is sufficient for editing mathematics articles on WP, but is hardly sufficient for this kind of discussion. Secondly, as my username is my real name, I may say that I am a retired specialist of computer algebra (internationally well known in this area) and of the related aspects of algebra. Thus my main activity on WP consists in editing the related articles and more generally to participate to WP:WikiProject Mathematics. Since three years, I have made over 3400 edits in 649 different pages, almost all related to mathematics, no one related to R&I, with very few reverts [148].

Statement by Johnuniq[edit]

I have noticed the good-faith interventions by D.Lazard, but have not had time to try talking to them about the issue. This is one of those unfortunate cases where an editor takes the side of the underdog, perhaps (mistakenly) seeing themselves as sticking up for someone being bitten by an aggressive article owner. However, any editor with experience in this area quickly recognizes that the situation is exactly as Mathsci has explained above.

A complication is that the Arbcom motion mentioned as the "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" is applicable only because Mathsci is an "editor associated with the R&I topic". It would not be helpful to spend time discussing whether that is "fair", or whether we can be "sure" that the trolling socks really are trolling socks. Instead, admins experienced in AE would know that the best way to help the encyclopedia would be to have this matter quickly resolved with a firm directive that WP:DENY must be applied, and there must be no more encouragement of the banned user. Unfortunately all this excitement means that whatever happens, the banned user will cause more trouble in the next few weeks. Johnuniq (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge[edit]

I'm confused as to what the violation is supposed to be. MathSci's first diff does show D.Lazard posting an off-topic statement to this forum. While MathSci is correct, this was apparently D.Lazard's first and only post to RfE.[149] D.Lazard may not have realized that this was inappropriate. Since we're supposed to assume good faith and not bite the newbies (well, newbie to this forum), this was probably an honest mistake. D.Lazard didn't try to add it back or dispute this on their talk page. The other diffs show D.Lazard disagreeing over a block. We don't sanction editors for simply disagreeing about something. If we did, there wouldn't be many of us left to edit Wikipedia. The sanction or remedy to be enforced that MathSci links to, Motion (on restoring reverted edits 3), doesn't seem to apply: D.Lazard didn't restore any reverted edit made by a banned editor (or if they did, it's not in the evidence presented in this request). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Second Statement by A Quest for Knowledge[edit]

There seems to be near universal agreement that this RfE is meritless. As I have pointed out previously in other related RfEs, I am concerned about how quickly MathSci is to attack other editors without merit. This RfE is just the latest example. According to the original ArbCom case, MathSci "has engaged in incivility and personal attacks in text, [25][26][27] and in edit summaries;[28][29] once went so far as to accuse one editor of being a "holocaust denier";[30] routinely threatens other editors with blocks,[31][32][33] and has made other, veiled threats.[34] His editing of articles and their talk pages has been unduly aggressive and combative...,[150]" ArbCom's finding was passed unanimously (8 to 0) without a single detention. While I have great respect for the AE process and the AE admins who volunteer their time to help settle these disputes, I really do feel this is one of those areas where we have failed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's true that I had MathSci and me once had a negative encounter. (For the record, I did not label my statement as "uninvolved" for this very reason, and my opinion would be the same regardless.) In any case, I'm not sure how this invalidates ArbCom's findings, why that excuses this meritless RfE or justifies MathSci's continued battleground mentality.
Six months ago, I stated on this board:
"I've been watching this sorry mess for the last few months with dismay, and this constant disruption needs to end. Sadly, this RfE is another example of Mathsci's battleground conduct. I don't know if this is best handled at AE or by ArbCom, but I don't see how this is going to end without a topic ban for Mathsci and an extension of the 1 way interaction bans to both ways. ... Before rushing through this proposal, some careful consideration should be given to the fact that Mathsci's battleground conduct extends beyond AE. So while limiting Mathsci's ability to file RfE is a step in the right direction, it does nothing to address the disruption caused outside of AE. Quite frankly, the reason why we're back here at AE again, is AE's inability to solve the problem."[151]
While I have great respect overall for AE and the admins who attempt to resolve such difficult disputes, this is one of those cases where AE has failed. As I've said previously, we're going to keep seeing this problem again and again until something concrete is done about it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Rschwieb[edit]

This complaint is baseless. Here, Mathsci mischaracterizes D.Lazard as an enabler of a sockpuppeteer: yet D.Lazard made it plain on his talkpage that sockpuppeteers should be punished, and that he is concerned that these accusations and summary judgements are made by a single editor (Mathsci). D.Lazard's only action was to question Mathsci's judgement. Mathsci does not distinguish (or cannot distinguish) between a challenger of his judgement and a sockpuppet enabler. I think this litigation is just an inappropriate reaction to that challenge.

I know D.Lazard behaves constructively, reasonably and deferentially in all cases I have worked with him. He is also probably not very familiar with the Echigo mole case, and possibly has underestimated the perpetrator. There is no impediment to punishing the Echigo mole case here: there is just a desire to make sure the punishment reaches legitimate targets. I have seen Mathsci, on the other hand, wield whatever authority or seniority he thinks he has as a blunt object, and that leads me to believe this action against D.Lazard is just an unfortunate spasm. I am led to believe that Mathsci is capable of pursuading D.Lazard, and I know that D.Lazard can be convinced with reason.

Here is how the situation looks to me: There is an Echigo mole bogeyman. The mole is "evasive" and "hard to detect" but yet Mathsci pounces upon them immediately as "obvious socks." At first glance, the crusade is one-man: anyone marked for condemnation by Mathsci must be blocked. Certainly, the mole must be blocked: the real question is who determines who gets blocked?. It would certainly set me more at ease if I knew how many people are dedicated to identifying the mole's puppets.

These are my personal observations: D.Lazard is free to disown any part that don't match his own. Rschwieb (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Maschen (uninvolved)[edit]

Yes, uninvolved, but so what?? I agree the complaint is baseless and pointless.

D.Lazard simply acts in good faith - something Mathsci seems to have little or none of. Instead, he (Mathsci) makes bitter remarks to other editors such as here and here, even Deltahedron's page like this, then denies his personal attack. Even so he's OK to boast in everyone's face that he's "the major mathematical contributor of WP". Although it's certainly a positive contribution to WP that he adds advanced material - is this hypocrisy to be covered up?

Deltahedron and D. Lazard also contribute positively (or at least Deltahedron did, before he was discouraged away). So there is no reason for AE on D.Lazard. Thanks. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 22:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by JBL[edit]

For a user who allegedly wants to spend his or her time writing math articles, MathSci sure manages to spend a lot of it attacking perfectly reasonable contributors like Deltahedron and D. Lazard. The complaint is obviously frivilous, petty, and unpleasant; MathSci should stop wasting other contributors' time. --JBL (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning D.Lazard[edit]

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

I don't think that this request is actionable. As mentioned in a statement above, the remedy whose enforcement is requested is about reverting edits of sockpuppets, which does not apply to the edits by D.Lazard at issue. In general, while D.Lazard may be mistaken to object to the blocks of alleged sockpuppets, such objections are not, in and of themselves, disruptive, and therefore they are not sanctionable. However, D.Lazard, I advise you not to unnecessarily complicate the work of blocking admins by questioning their blocks without good cause; normally it is up to the blocked users themselves to appeal the block in one of the various available venues if they believe that the block is mistaken. If you continue to argue in favor of blocked users whose blocks are otherwise uncontroversial, it is possible that an administrator may conclude that you are acting as a meatpuppet of the blocked user(s). As to the concerns raised by you with respect to Mathsci's editing in the topic area of mathematics, these cannot be addressed in this venue because they are beyond the scope of the arbitration case referenced here. They need to be resolved through the normal dispute resolution process.  Sandstein  14:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Good points. I agree with this summary and would suggest we close the report along these lines. Fut.Perf. 17:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Generally agree, but I disagree that an administrator should not question blocks.. we give administrators a lot of leeway with blocks, but the flip side of that is that an administrator must always be prepared to discuss/defend their actions. As for Mathsci's editing in mathematics, that does not fall under the existing arbitration case and would need to go through DR seperately. SirFozzie (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)