Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive70

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

Contents

Athenean[edit]

Both parties admonished and warned; filer interaction-banned.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Athenean[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
— ZjarriRrethues — talk19:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Athenean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Purpose of Wikipedia
Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Decorum
Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Editorial process
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [1] Labeling all comments made by Albanian editors as arguments of low quality.
  2. [2] Accusing admin as not impartial because he made a suggestion about the previous dif
  3. [3][4] Personal attacks against me(although I supported the decision to reduce his sanctions when he was topic banned)
  4. [5] Deleting sourced content from the lead with summary Only an Albanian nationalist would place this in the second sentence of the article.
  5. [6] Deleting sourced content with idontlikeit arguments about the reliability of the source(on RSN it was approved as rs)
  6. [7] Further comments on the author herself that as I have read in some other reports might be considered BLP violations.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [8] Warning byThe Wordsmith (talk · contribs)
  2. Latest sanctions:User talk:Athenean#Sanction notice extended to User talk:Athenean#Banned
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Indefinite topic ban from all topics and discussions related to Albania, Albanians. He had already received a two-week topic ban on Balkans a couple of months ago.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Athenean has received already two times sanctions for his editing behavior in Balkans related articles. The latest that expired was a four-month 1RR and expired about two-weeks ago. I have seen him many times while taking part in discussions with other users who edit the same articles making aggressive comments about the users themselves likeSuch behavior disgusts me, it's called backstabbing in English. I am done with you, and I am withdrawing from your stupid "collaboration" board. Since the sanctions ended he returned to his previous behavior and even when he was warned by The Wordsmith to ease up on the accusations against other users he didn't stop. Some users who have received the same sanctions as Athenean and also blocks may make comments against other users to defend him. A decision should be taken quickly to avoid any kind of disruptive behavior during this AE.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk19:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

@I think that was the most supportive comment I could make and saying that it could be reduced to 4 months seemed supportive, although I agreed with the initial sanctions, but for my own reasons I changed my mind. If I had to make a similar comment again I would still consider it supportive because I generally don't even partially approve alternatives to already imposed sanctions, so all things considered from my subjective view I probably couldn't more supportive than that. Since the AE Athenean hasn't been very active on Albanian-related topics but regarding the two Albanian-related topics he's taking part in recently this dif is possibly problematic [9]. @Athenean: When Athenean was sanctioned Kedadi(an Albanian user) was sanctioned too, because I reported both sanction violations. The comments of Athenean show his battleground mentality , which is why I reported him to AE and notified admins who had dealt with him before as they would be more familiar with the discussion(and that is something that Athenean labels as canvassing}. Athenean even now labels the comments of all Albanian users as a national block, so all things considered a topic ban from Albanian topics is more than necessary given the fact that fighting nasty Albanian propaganda is one of Athenean's goals on wikipedia, which as I saw in another report is one of the first comments he has ever made on wikipedia I find the nationalist propaganda on the Albania page very dangerous for Greece and its heritage (analogous to the FYROM dispute) and only by uniting will we be able to set the record straight and defeat this nasty propaganda.(this one of his comments, but as you can see Athenean still continues the same behavior by trying to exclude all Albanian users' opinions as comments of low quality).

  • Even now that he should be making comments that show he will refrain from battleground mentality he comments on other users wanting to eliminate their opponents. We've all had frequent disputes with many users, but I've never reported any of them because disagreeing isn't a reason to report someone, but when the editing and the comments become disruptive and show a battleground mentality against other users then the AE is necessary. No other user I've dealt with has ever said that he has opponents who try to eliminate him or that another user's behavior disgusts them because they reported a possible sanction violation or that admins are impartial whenever they warn him because he says that all the comments of Albanian users are of low quality. Cplakidas(a Greek user) and Evlekis(a Montenegrin user) have taken part in several discussions, in which I've disagreed with them and they've disagreed with me but I'd never report them because they're civil enough to not make comments like Athenean.
  • The main problem with Athenean is that he attributes extremely negative motives to users like saying that I'm way too eager to see him banned because made a very common copy/paste mistake. Whenever he chose to not make such comments I was willing to show good faith [10], but as you can see from his comments even when he's asked to defend himself against he thinks that he's defending himself by attributing extremely negative comments to other users.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Timotheus is right about assuming good faith, but I would like his opinion on how to deal with actions like the deletion of sources because a user doesn't find them appropriate. The source was rs with full details(even the cited sentence was highlighted on the link) and yet Athenean considered it not appropriate [11] so he just deleted it. At first he removed some people from a list [12], then when the sources that verified that they should be on that list were added he just deleted the source on one of them because he didn't find it appropriate without even explaining why he didn't find it appropriate(maybe after me adding this to AE he'll add that explanation). I'm not trying to find problematic diffs but when the user keeps making edits(like the unexplained deletion of sources) without even trying to explain his views any user would find this a difficult situation. I understand that assuming good faith is important, but when a user has been sanctioned twice he probably knows that deleting sources and not giving any explanation apart from I don't find it appropriate is problematic and that's one of the main reasons that I started this AE. If Athenean had to discuss about issues like deleting sources before deleting them I don't think that there would be any problematic diffs.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk20:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • @Wgfinley: I agree then with the admonishment and if Athenean agrees too I'm willing(and it would be the best decision) to not have any personal interaction with him apart from simple editing comments and vice-versa, but I'd like him to agree too that he'll do the same. Btw I reported Seleukosa at SPI and a likely resulted turned out, so please Athenean don't consider likely correct reports as wikihounding ,while you reported me 3 days after I signed up as someone's sock and after continued reporting and complaining about me and please don't label as denouncing the two recent events, in which I mentioned two edits for which you were warned. I'm willing to not interact at all with you apart from article talkpage discussions, but you're not willing to do that even though you have reported me and too many Albanian users for exactly the same issues multiple times. We're also discussing this on Athenean's talkpage User talk:Athenean#Ending that AE(on which Athenean removed my latest reply about my proposal to not have any kind of personal interaction but you can read it on this diff [13]).--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[14]

Discussion concerning Athenean[edit]

Statement by Athenean[edit]

  • Regarding the problematic diffs, I would like to point out that I was given due warning about them by User:The Wordsmith [15], and have refrained from making problematic comments since. The diffs are also almost a month old, and I'd like to think that I haven't said anything problematic in the meantime.
  • Over the 3+ years I have been editing wikipedia, I think that I have been quite civil overall. I have never been sanctioned for incivility before and believe I have generally managed to keep the peace. This is a sensitive, difficult area to work in, emotions frequently run high, and some disputes will invariably get hot. Editors don't get credit for the 999/1000 times they manage to remain civil, but one slip-up and it's sanctions. That I thus should be penalized for two problematic diffs out of thousands of non-problematic diffs I find a bit harsh.
  • Though I was under a 1R/24 hours restriction that expired on September 7, in the interest of the general peace I have voluntarily abided by 1R since. I am trying hard to be constructive, and don't feel that I need to be sanctioned.
  • When disputes become intractable, as they invariably do, I am usually one of the first to seek mediation, either via RfC or by posting at noticeboards such as WP:RSN [16] or WP:CCN [17]. Some disputes were only resolved thanks to my posting on such noticeboards. Again, this shows that I try to bring a constructive approach to resolving disputes in this area.
  • In the interest of creating a positive climate I have also been known to praise Albanian editors when I feel they make a good edit, such as here [18] (even when the particular editor has been anything but polite with me in the past [19]), and I also admit when I'm wrong and self-revert [20].
  • Regarding the first problematic diff, I was frustrated because here was a situation where all participating editors from one nationality voted one way, and only one way, and everybody else voted the other. This has previously been dubbed "national block voting" (not by me) and is particularly problematic as far as dispute resolution goes since the traditional dispute resolution tools don't work in such cases. The previous time something similar happened (this time with Greek editors all voting along national lines), the result was a rather hellish arbitration case, WP:ARBMAC2. I thus felt the need to point out what was going on, and felt I was calling a WP:SPADE. Regarding the second diff, again I also got really frustrated, I mean, what else could motivate someone from copy-pasting this sentence [21] from the body of the article right smack into the second sentence of the lede? That said, I understand that making characterizations based on nationality/ethnicity is indeed problematic, and solemnly engage to refrain from making such characterizations in the future.
  • Though I am well aware of WP:NOTTHEM, I feel the need to point that editor filing this AE report is a case of unclean hands. This editor has been pushing for me to get banned for months now, at every available opportunity, crossing deep into WP:HOUND territory. Barely after creating an account, he zealously participates in a frivolous AN/I hatchet-job filed by a user who has now been banned for precisely such disruption [22] [23]. When I successfully appealed an overly harsh topic ban against me, Zjarri was lobbying for a still-lengthy topic ban [24]. I believe this editor is now gaming WP:AE to try and get rid of users that frequently disagree with him on content matters. Over the past months, he has been meticulously and systematically combing through each and every single diff of mine in an attempt to get me sanctioned, mostly via IRC, thus leaving no trace [25] (while also falsely claiming to have reported Albanian users, which he never has). For example, a month ago he showed the same diffs used in this report to The Wordsmith on IRC, but that admin was content with merely issuing a warning. Apparently this wasn't enough, so then a few days later ZjarriRrethues files this report, using the same diffs. When he filed this report, he canvassed admins that had sanctioned me in the past [26] [27], while studiously avoiding admins that had spoken in support of me [28], though he interacts with them frequently and they are perhaps the most expert in the area of the Balkans. When this report was archived (doubtless because most admins who saw it didn't find it actionable), what does he do? He de-archives it and re-posts it, on the grounds that I am still "causing disruption". However, between the original filing of this report and now I haven't caused the slightest disruption, and I invite anyone to look at my contribs and see for him/herself. No edit-warring, no incivility, nothing. One is thus left to wonder what his definition of disruption is, besides happening to disagree with him on content matters. He is also always quick to call "disruption" at every opportunity, which makes talking to him problematic [29] [30] [31]. In fact, so eager is he to to see me sanctioned that in his haste he included in this very AE report a diff by another user [32]! He has also filed a report against another Greek editor who frequently disagrees with him, User:Alexikoua, going so far as copy-pasting text from the AE report on me to the report on Alexikoua (which is also non-actionable and has been ignored). If we include the de-archiving of this report, that's three AE reports posted within the space of 8 days. To me, it is quite evident this user really, really wants me (and other editors that frequently disagree with him) sanctioned. Yet gaming disruption prevention tools such as WP:AE for the purpose of eliminating one's opponents is the epitome of bad faith, wikihounding, and clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

P.S.: Following the posting of the above defense, Zjarri Rrethues is now digging up diffs from 3+ years ago, from my naive old days. I think that speaks for itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athenean (talkcontribs) 03:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S.: Zjarri isn't just hounding me, he is hounding several Greek users at once: User:Alexikoua, User:Seleukosa [33] (his behavior at the SPI speaks for itself). This user should be banned from commenting and filing frivolous reports against several Greek users, not just me. And the interaction ban should be one-sided, as he is the one doing the hounding, not me. The use of IRC to denounce his opponents behind their backs also really really needs to stop (he has done that at least three times recently).

Comments by others about the request concerning Athenean[edit]

I have to add that Athenean is really carefull in apporaching a variety of sensitive topics, including these that are of national sensitivity among the Balkan countries: he always fills a new case in wp:ani before things would become hot and follows a slow, step-by-step, strategy in order to make it easier to solve the case.

During the last two years, I watch his contribution, he received by various administrators congratulation messages ([[34]]) because of his efforts to battle distruption in wikipedia. I believe if a specific edit-summary was somewhat problematic this can't change the whole picture, especially in this case, when someone, like Athenean, spends hours to improve the quality of this project.Alexikoua (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Athenean[edit]

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

Looking over this. In the mean time, I invite ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs) to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for misrepresenting the contents of this diff as support for reducing Athenean's previous topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I find most of the diffs presented above to be not actionable, but [35] and [36] are problematic, as they tend to reinforce the battleground mentality that is unfortunately pervasive in this area. If there are additional, more recent, diffs not brought up above, they should be brought up now. Since I am contemplating some form of sanctions, I will invite Athenean to respond to this request. T. Canens (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with T. Canens' conclusions, although Athenean's behaviour is at the low end of disruption and an admonishment would be as far as I think I would go here. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
With respect to Athenean at least, this is ripe for action. My impression after reviewing the submissions is that Athenean has generally behaved reasonably, though mistakes do occasionally happen. I agree with Stifle that an admonishment is sufficient, so barring objections from other uninvolved admins that will be the only action taken. With respect to ZjarriRrethues, while it is acceptable to report misconduct, it is not acceptable to go through an editor's contributions with a fine-toothed comb hunting for the occasional problematic diff, and certainly digging up diffs from three years ago serves no purpose whatsoever. Moreover, I can see no reasonable way the diff I cited above can be interpreted as supportive of Athenean's appeal of his previous ban. I'm having difficulty coming up with a suitable sanction, though. Suggestions would be welcome. T. Canens (talk) 08:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Concur, strongly admonished that anything further is going to lead to topic ban. I also agree that Zjarri is on the verge of hounding, perhaps and interaction ban with these two with a time limit? --WGFinley (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
All right. I'm not really seeing Athenean going over the line with his interaction with ZR so I'm imposing only a one-sided ban right now. However, if I see any grave-dancing or other disruption after this it will be made a two-sided ban before you can spell "ban". Under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions:
  1. Athenean (talk · contribs) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as a battleground. He is warned that further infractions may lead to a topic ban.
  2. ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs) is banned from directly interacting with or commenting on Athenean, broadly construed, anywhere on Wikipedia for 3 months.
  3. ZjarriRrethues is warned for filing largely inactionable AE requests and for making factually inaccurate statements in AE requests. Any repeated infractions may lead to sanctions, up to and including a ban from AE altogether. T. Canens (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Concur. --WGFinley (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare[edit]

Closed with no block, but with the four admonitions given by Wgfinley. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Brews ohare[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare restricted
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [37] Created new article while deletion discussion in progress
  2. [38] Created new article while deletion discussion in progress
  3. [39] Created redirect over article deleted after discussion
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [40] Warning by JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs)
  2. [41] Warning by JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
I don't know what is needed except something that can convince Brews ohare that he cannot just ignore consensus and policies that he finds inconvenient. In a sense this is the same problem that got him banned from physics – no-one objects to occasional posting of fringe ideas on talk pages, it was the repeated posting against consensus that got him banned – suggesting the existing ban is not having the desired effect.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
A week ago I initiated a deletion discussion on Vector quadruple product as seen here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vector_quadruple_product. This was largely uncontentious except for Brews ohare's participation, where he made most of the contributions, repeatedly rewriting his proposals, claiming (one of his) proposals was the "sensible course", and so on. In particular during the discussion he created two articles, proposing first one, then another as replacements, the first a miscellaneous list of vector maths with no clear criteria for inclusion, the second the same as the deleted article with some trivial working, effectively preempting the result of the deletion discussion. In particular now the discussion is over, and the page has been deleted, he has recreated it as a redirect to one his new pages (one of his suggestions that was not supported by anyone else in the discussion), circumventing both the deletion discussion and the consensus of the participants. I tried proposing the new page for deletion, for the reasons given above, but that was removed with the suggestion of another timeconsuming AfD, at the same time accusing my of "sniping" for following process.
To Wgfinley: I would say this is not physics, except in that all maths is theoretical physics; but this has been clarified in previous discussions, Brews ohare's and David Tombe's topic bans do not extend to mathematics topics like this one.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 07:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
In reply to Brews ohare's latest accusations: I would like to see diffs of my "personal campaign of AN/I actions". The one link provided is to a deletion discussion I started, on an article which Brews ohare had not edited but became unusually interested in, contributing not only most of the discussion (more than all other editors together), but creating two new articles as described above, opening an RfC at another one and declining a PROD when I tried to avoid a second AfD on the same topic, turning what would probably have been a straightforward deletion discussion into a contentious and time consuming debate at multiple venues including this.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
To AGK: before PRODding the article I did consider speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 but it would fail (and did fail when another editor added a CSD tag) as it is not identical and unimproved, compared to the deleted article. It is though on the same topic, with changes that could and should have been added to Vector quadruple product before it was deleted, not forked into a separate article while the AfD was in process.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
To Count Iblis Redefinition of a metre was not PRODed by me but by User:Noq. It was only rescued by being completely rewritten: the current article now looks nothing like that one, is now at History of the metre and has none of Brews ohare's original content. Idée fixe (psychology) as it now is still looks like a dictionary definition and WP:QUOTEFARM; I've done what I can to fix problems but it's not received the same attention from experts on the subject as History of the metre. And re this you are confusing it with the PROD which Brews ohare removed--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
To David Tombe I repeat what I wrote to Brews ohare above: if you have any problems with my actions please provide diffs. Other than this my most recent visit here was because of Brews ohare's editing at Speed of light and Talk:Speed of light, editing which got him banned for a further year. To imply, without diffs, that anyone other than Brews ohare was at fault is just shooting the messenger.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
To David Tombe As I recall The Boy Who Cried Wolf was the story of someone who repeatedly called for help when none was needed. Which, is relevant how exactly ? Again, if you have any problems with my participation provide diffs, not vague accusations ("policing"?) and irrelevant literary references. And you have still to comment on the matter at hand.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
Brews ohare notified: [42]

Discussion concerning Brews ohare[edit]

Statement by Brews ohare[edit]

Of course, there are many ways to approach salvage of article content, and Blackburne apparently would prefer it be done differently. Posting a replacement article without the flaws of the one in dispute is a reasonable approach to retaining what was of value, particularly when the article in AfD had so many failings (including an incorrect title) that made a total rewrite the practical course of action. The Vector quadruple product discussion was not interfered with, and that article was deleted as was evident would happen from the beginning, and as advocated by Blackburne himself. The newly corrected article Quadruple product with a correct title and proper citations is presently under AfD without the distractions of obvious problems, and will be removed if notability cannot be established. That course of events requires no disciplinary intervention.

It is odd to view creation of a corrected, sourced article with the right title as interference. It isn't an infraction of WP procedures. Blackburne's claim of a violation of this sanction as the basis for bringing his action here has no connection to the AfD issue. That is, Blackburne is not requesting enforcement of a sanction against me, but confusing an AfD discussion with something it is not. His action does not belong here, and no-one here has shown any cause to believe it does. A (false) perception of my interpretations of physics topics is not a basis for action here upon an unrelated matter that is, in fact, a salutary action to salvage an article's correct content. Brews ohare (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW; the terms of the sanctions against me require a formal warning by an uninvolved administrator that action is under consideration, to allow me to desist without need for disciplinary action. No such warning was provided, vitiating any action under the sanctions.

Of course, it is my position that creating an article to salvage a math topic in AfD is not a disciplinary matter anyway, and has no connection to the sanctions in force against me. So protocol violations are of importance only if by some weird twist of thought it is considered that the sanctions actually apply, which has not been shown, nor even argued. Brews ohare (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

WGFinley: I am sorry that your review has not changed your mind, despite the facts that (i) the sanction does not apply (ii) were it to apply, it was improperly implemented and (iii) my actions were beneficial to WP and conform to normal WP editing. You view an important aspect of the sanction, that of prior warning, as Wikilawyering: ArbCom knows why it put that warning into the wording, and it was not so it could be ignored. Contrary to your reading, it serves the purpose of warning me that what is on its face a benign activity will be interpreted as an actionable infraction.

However, the main problem is not the wording of the sanction, it is that no effort has been made to show the sanction does apply, and that my actions were not exactly what I claim them to be: a salvage operation entirely separate from the subject of the sanction. Ask yourself what possible other motive I might have. Am I expressing a controversial opinion? No. Am I developing original research? Hardly! Am I arguing with other editors about deletion? Only with Blackburne, who rather than discuss deletion, came here to exercise. Personally, I don't give a damn about this article: I was simply trying to be of service. If it is deleted, so be it. Excuse my language, #$%^ this article. It would be lamentable if you were so rushed that you could not take the time to think about your actions, and simply rubber-stamped. Brews ohare (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to WGFinley's latest: Your assessment of my objectives is a half-truth: I was not aiming to avoid deletion of the article, but to salvage what was correct under an appropriate topic name. That was in no way disruptive, and the article from the outset was clearly going to deletion, with protests from no-one, as happened. Look at the deletion discussion. Blackburne is not protesting against actual disruption, but pursuing his personal campaign of AN/I actions, failed attempts at deletions of other articles I have posted (for example, this), deletion of my figures, forcing of nit-picking RfC's over any detail he can find, and trivial reversions of my minor edits. Brews ohare (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

More to WGFinley: “The behavior that brought me to Arbcom” is covered by the restrictions proposed by Arbcom, and cited by Blackburne as being violated by my present actions. These restrictions (i) have not been shown to be violated, and (ii) the warning required by protocol wasn't issued.

Instead of dismissal of this action as not pertinent, now the subject has turned to vague assertions of various “disturbances that took place in various areas”, which are only say-so claims by Blackburne. At the most, any "disturbance" amounts to creation of a substitute article without the obvious problems identified in the original AfD. The new article has resulted in an AfD for Quadruple product that now is proceeding on a clear basis with the glaring issues of the original out of the way. That is not “forcing the process to start over”: it's clearing the decks for an uncluttered discussion. This salvage procedure isn't Wikipedia:Gaming the system, that is, it isn't “a bad faith effort to thwart the purposes of WP”. Rather, it's a normal evolution of an article that needed a lot of work, including a new title, corrected statements, and sourcing. To introduce the notion of malicious intent on my part is baseless. Brews ohare (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Flonight: Even granting your long preamble that the manner of my contributions annoys some editors, I fail to see merit in blocking me for the innocuous creation of an article in a totally uncontroversial area. In fact, WP appears likely to have two new articles of mine, Vector algebra relations and Quadruple product, that will have been adopted as a result of my activities regarding the original AfD, and despite objections by Blackburne. You are advocating a block for actions unrelated to the issues you wish to underline. I'd suggest you wait to block me until some truly problematic behavior of mine shows up, and not for constructive activities like salvaging the contents of an article in AfD. Brews ohare (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your observation “Brews needs to be more sensitive to how his content contributions and discussion comments come across to other people in order to lower the tensions around him.” I would like to lower those tensions too. I don't think my content contributions are the biggest problem (aside from arguments about their being too text-book like or offering too many examples), but it does appear that editors do not appreciate detailed Talk page discussions, and like to settle matters simply. I believe I am evolving in the direction of limited response, although I believe limited discussion to result in simple-minded articles. Brews ohare (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to request for contrition made by WGFinley: WGF, I agree that reform of my Talk page argumentativeness is desirable. However, I do not find that such argumentativeness is the source of Blackburne's action. No editor involved in the various AfD's save Blackburne has found my behavior there heinous, and Administrators don't either: they just think I'm in the dock so some reminder that I am under sanction would be salutary. I assure you that such a reminder is unnecessary. In the present instance, no violation of my sanctions has occurred, and even if you believe yourself that a violation did occur, protocol has not been followed. That is, despite your own interpretation, the fair-warning clause of my sanction was not observed, which in your mind is just surplus garbage in the wording. I believe that in fact it is a crucial part of the sanction, especially when benign actions to salvage article content from deletion is taken as an offense, something I'd not expect unless warned.

So, although I'm happy to admit failings, and need for reform, I do not find the present situation warrants any action on your part, and that my behavior in the past, already under sanction, needs no gratuitous emphasis in the present context. Brews ohare (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to EdJohnston: Although I have asked for clarification in the past, that is not an excuse for making no attempt at identifying the behavior that this particular sanction is meant to correct, and making clear what reform in my conduct is sought. How else can reform occur?

I'd say that there is a pattern with ArbCom and administrators in general of stating such sanctions in a deliberately vague manner, ostensibly to allow latitude in their enforcement (Beeeblebrox: “Vagueness of many policies/rulings/guidelines/ is not an accident.”), but actually serves to allow sanctions to be brought with no justification in cases such as this one, where no harm has been identified, simply because there is none. If they all believe something is wrong here, they should show cause, and not disguise matters with empty words and vague allegations about prior behavior being repeated with no evidence of same. Brews ohare (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In particular, Ed, I made no-one "mad" in the AfD "debate", if you read it, except Blackburne, who was mad to begin with and thought this WP:AE action was a great way to vent. Please point out with diffs any other person who has indicated impatience with my actions in the AfD discussion, which was by no stretch of imagination a "debate". Brews ohare (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ed, you will notice that the outcome of the AfD was deletion of the article, a result evident from the outset of the AfD as no-one supported it (hardly a debate, eh?), and creation by myself of two new articles Vector algebra relations (with a section correcting the bare statement of results from the deleted article) and Quadruple product expanding the discussion of the subject of the deleted article beyond mere results. This last has survived its own AfD (a no-consensus vote), and the first was not subjected to an AfD. These two articles are the positive results of my actions: their creation has annoyed no-one (save Blackburne, of course) and they are in keeping with the goals of WP.

In view of all the above, which details you may not have looked into before, I'd appreciate from you a more careful framing of the issues here, rather than your present rather jaundiced view which I find to be superficial. Brews ohare (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Michael C Price: I'm sure your explanation is the best you can do, given your abilities. However, it is overly complicated: you see, I am only an idiot, not an idiot savant. Brews ohare (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment on proposed remedy[edit]

I would like a further clarification of the proposed remedy:

  1. What is admonished against regarding my conduct during the AfD for Vector quadruple product? You will understand that it is difficult to correct my behavior when I do not understand what was objectionable. Frankly, IMO you will be hard-put to elucidate the transgressions you refer to, and probably will find it easier simply to pretend no answer is necessary.
  2. Are you suggesting that the present sanction against me be extended by adding "mathematics" to its wording so it reads "physics and mathematics"?
  3. You have previously advised that the wording requiring fair warning in the existing sanction is meaningless, even to the extent that an arbitrary editor (not even an uninvolved administrator) need not provide fair warning that they are going to ArbCom or AN/I. You have ignored this requirement of protocol in your considerations here. So exactly what are you aiming at with your talk about warnings? And, where is the WP:AGF on your part regarding my obviously well-meant acts?
  4. Do you propose that any editor can take me to AN/I without provocation or warning, and I will be held to have disrupted WP on the basis that it is myself who occupies Administrators needlessly (not the party opening the case), and it is myself who automatically will be sanctioned for failure to avoid said disturbance? IMO that is exactly what is happening in the present case.

A “yes” answer seems to me to be your intent on all counts. That kind of abrupt and harsh action outside all regulation and reason is brute force and while a command, commands no respect. I do hope I have misinterpreted your intent. Brews ohare (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It now appears that AGK and FloNight support WGFinley in this ill-advised, arbitrary action taken without regard to protocol. As with WGFinley, AGK suggests that I will be firmly sanctioned under "similar circumstances" although it remains completely unspecified what "circumstances" have been evidenced by my actions to salvage an article, a salvage procedure that has led without a breath of controversy (aside from Blackburne, of course) to two new articles Quadruple product and Vector algebra relations that would otherwise not exist. Perhaps the "circumstances" leading to firm sanction arise whenever Blackburne objects to something that I do? FloNight suggests that my salvage actions here unnecessarily provoked controversy, although there was absolutely no controversy except with Blackburne himself, who has a huge history of nitpicking everything I do on WP, a matter not entirely under my control.

What has happened is that my historical past is introduced and it is proposed that I be sanctioned once more on the basis of my past actions, nothing to do with the present situation at all. Brews ohare (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm resigned to such indifference to reasonableness. I am used now to actions by administrators who rejoice in their authority, without regard for its goals. A main goal, of course, is the facilitation of creation and improvement of articles, exactly what I have done here. Instead of looking at the two articles I have added to WP, false allegations by Blackburne have been adopted without scrutiny and used to fabricate a controversy with no supporting evidence whatsoever, and no awareness that evidence is needed. It's a shame and it's shameful. Brews ohare (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In sum: I can understand very well an admonishment that my conduct in the AfD could have led to an imbroglio so I should be more careful in future. I can't understand the four-point proposed remedy of WGFinley, which goes far beyond that. In contradiction to fact, WGFinley implies that my conduct during the AfD really disrupted the AfD, suggests my topic restrictions be extended to mathematics even though subject matter is not at issue and even though such an extension probably is ultra vires, imputes a lack of good faith on my part not in evidence, and asserts that should I be dragged before administrators in their function of adjudication, that is an actionable offense in itself and I should be assumed to have "improperly comported myself". It is clear that this last presumption was made already by WGFinley in his drafting of his remedy. WGFinley's remedy is unduly prejudicial in scope and wording. It's got nothing to do with what happened. Brews ohare (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment on AGK's outline of understanding[edit]

I appreciate your intention to better inform me of my problems and how this admonition is to assist me. There are a few things that strike me as correct, and some that are not.

1. There is no doubt that I created an alternative version of an article in the midst of an AfD discussion. You suggest that my failure to follow the particular procedure you outline is an indication that my motives were not to rescue the article, but an attempt to circumvent consensus. You say that the mere possibility of suspecting impure motives warrants admonishment. I don't agree that there is any basis for such an interpretation, that such an imputation violates WP:AGF, that there is no formal provision that an alternative form of an article in AfD should not be presented, that there are multiple ways to proceed in an an AfD, and the one I followed is not the best but worked OK in this case. It is appropriate to issue a caution that my actions in this AfD constitute a potential source of difficulty, for example, in a different AfD where opinion was divided. However, this basis for WGFinley's extended list of admonishments is thin, at best.
2. I fail to see what mathematics has to do with any of this. The AfD situation could arise in any context, and the fact that it is a math article is inconsequential and irrelevant except for one thing: Blackburne edits math articles. Your admonition here is a disguised form of telling me to get along with Blackburne, which in fact I have attempted, but without success. For example, I invited him to assist with my substitute article. I don't think dispute with Blackburne is entirely my fault, and if you would like some examples of what I am talking about look at this. Other than Blackburne I have had little trouble on math articles, for example, Pythagoras' theorem, Triangle inequality, Euclidean geometry, Hilbert space, Delta function, Parallelogram law, Parallel postulate virtually any math article where Blackburne did not show up. There are some instances of back-and-forth, but all were resolved, and show a willingness to compromise on my part.
3. Yes, I have a bee in my bonnet. I have very extensively explained what I think could remedy this problem in ways that would greatly improve WP. See the essays On improving the editing climate. I have avoided physics topics and controversy, and avoided arbitration successfully except for Blackburne and Headbomb.
4. I have never had any problem with WP:NPOV, and this caution does not seem pertinent to my actions. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean here? I have always focused upon content, except in AN/I and ArbCom disputes where it is difficult to avoid other matters. I have been dragged into AN/I and ArbCom primarily because of overly extended disputes on Talk pages, most recently by Blackburne and by Headbomb for raising an objection to his premature archiving content on a Talk page. None of these actions relate to WP:NPOV and yet clearly have led to AE.

I object to FloNight's observation that I needlessly provoke conflict. I believe that this remark applies to me on occasion, less so recently than in the past, but that it isn't pertinent in the present context. Exchange with Blackburne is exchange with a very difficult individual and cannot be generalized so simply. Brews ohare (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Comment by Count Iblis (Brews' advocate :) )[edit]

Brews has let me know that he won't have time for Wikipedia for the coming few weeks and asked me to take a look at the article about the quadruple product, particularly his comments here, because he thought the article would be put on AFD by John Blackburne after he left. He presumably doesn't know that the matter has ended up here.

I didn't have enough time to read through all the disputes, but what I did note was lack of participation from other math experts in the AFD. I.m.o., the matter should have been raised at WikiProject math, because the issue isn't that straightforward. It is now hard to see what is consensus and what is the opinion of JohnBlackburne and User:DVdm.

I have asked User:Hans Adler, an experienced math editor, if he has the time to give his comments here. My preliminary look leads me to conclude that this is one of those issues where I say: "what is all the fuss about", but I know that others sometime have a competely different opinion in such cases. So that's why I asked him to take a look. Count Iblis (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to JohnBlackburne on "opposing" Brews

I have a different opinion on your actions that Brews has. I don't see it as a personal campaign to oppose Brews per se. But you do have the complete opposite POV when it comes to editing/creating articles. Two previous articles in which Brews was heavily involved that you put on AFD that I'm aware of are:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idée fixe

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redefinition of the Metre in 1983

Both of these articles are now reasonably good articles (I think these artiles were even PRODed first by you, but I would have to check). About the PROD for the quadruple product article, note that it was eventually refused by JamesBWatson on the grounds: "Declining speedy deletion. This article is substantially different from the one discussed in the previous AfD."

I think all this is well motivated, you edit Wikipedia to improve it in the best way you see fit. But when doing so leads to you frequently having to "oppose" another editor and if that opposition (which is not your goal per se) is often rejected by the community, you have to ask yourself if your opinion is not a bit idiosyncratic. It may be better to raise perceived problems at Wiki-Project Math first and let others take the initiative to start an AFD, or warn Brews about misconduct. Count Iblis (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment by jheiv[edit]

The article seems useless (IMO), however, what looks to be more of a concern is the user's actions during the AfD discussion. And while the article looks fine on its face (some sourcing, pretty equations), it worries me that the user is so committed to his edits that he refuses to seek consensus, or actively opposes it. To be honest, its a little disappointing because it looks as if the editor has the skills and ability to contribute productively, if they had any interest in it at all -- but at least from the actions outlined here -- it's not clear to me that they do. jheiv talk contribs 08:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Hans Adler[edit]

I am only commenting here because Count Iblis asked me to.

About the question of mathematics or physics: This article is about mathematics, although it is the kind of mathematics that interests physicists much more than mathematicians.

About the article itself: It seems useless to me. Basically it just defines a term that is not very important. If it is in common use among some people, then it should be defined in a related article and the article should be redirected there.

About Brews Ohare's editing of mathematics articles: He has contributed a large number of beautiful graphics to Pythagorean theorem. He has also participated in one of the most bizarre debates about a mathematical topic that I have ever seen (now filling most of talk page archives 3 and 4), started by David Tombe, who claimed that the theorem is really a three-dimensional theorem and in particular that it doesn't hold in higher dimensions. Brews Ohare's role in this discussion was not clear to me (in fact I confused him with David Tombe and in a previous version of this comment falsely claimed that he had started the discussion), but in any case I think he didn't help to stop the circus.

It is generally not a good idea to ignore consensus or ongoing discussions. On the other hand this is not a clear case of doing so. It appears that Brews Ohare misjudged other editors' positions and attitudes, especially w.r.t. himself, and was acting in a spirit of good faith and collaborative editing. (I am not very familiar with him, though, and may be missing a general pattern here.) [Comment revised after an email by Davide Tombe refreshed my mind.]Hans Adler 16:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Would like some elaboration regarding getting emailed from David Tombe, did he email you about your comments here? --WGFinley (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I had said something negative about Brews Ohare that was incorrect, because I misremembered an interaction with Davide Tombe as being with Brews Ohare. David Tombe, the person in the best position to notice my error, saw it and sent me an email pointing it out. While I don't have a very high opinion of David Tombe, this was perfectly proper and to his credit. (Sorry for the late response. I am not actively watching this page.) Hans Adler 12:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment by David Tombe[edit]

It might be a good idea if any future actions taken against Brews ohare were to be initiated by editors other than John Blackburne or Headbomb. I have totally lost count of how many actions these two editors have taken out against Brews ohare in the last 12 months, but apart from one action by Physchim62, I can't recall any actions against Brews ohare which were not initiated by either Headbomb or John Blackburne. It doesn't look good when the requests for sanctions and article deletions are always coming from the same two editors. David Tombe (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to John Blackburne[edit]

John, The point which I am making is that I think the time has now come for you to voluntarily stand aside and let somebody else take on the role of policing Brews ohare. I think you've done your bit for now. This latest episode concerning the vector quadruple product has got some of the hallmarks of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, and as such, I think it's only fair to the administrators to allow them the opportunity to see if anybody else will take over if you step aside. David Tombe (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Hans Adler[edit]

Hans, it would be much better if you were to actually check your facts before speaking out in a negative manner against anybody. I corrected you regarding Brews ohare because I was there at the discussion in question and I saw what went on. You now acknowledge that you made a mistake in relation to what you said about Brews, but you have decided in turn to speak negatively about me instead. You are speaking here to a group of administrators who perhaps don't know very much about mathematics, and so it is unfair to voice your own negative opinions about my views on mathematical topics to these guys here. It is also wrong to claim that I started the debate in question when in fact I didn't. My entry to that debate began at the end of archive 2 and I had sporadic edits throughout archives 3 and 4. See here [43] The viewpoint which I expressed was based on a Lounesto source, a favourite source of John Blackburne's, and that viewpoint was that the Pythagorean identity could at most only hold in 3 or 7 dimensions. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever bizarre about this point of view, as you have claimed above. David Tombe (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Michael C. Price[edit]

Everyone - well, almost everyone - is asking Brews to understand how his behaviour pisses off others. There is also a general bewilderment about Brews' motivation. Could it be that we have a case of Asperger's syndrome here? Not sure what the solution is, if this is the case, but understanding the problem might go some way towards finding a solution. --Michael C. Price talk 19:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Brews ohare[edit]

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

Creating articles, redirects, etc when the article is being discussed in an AfD is very bad form and seems to be in violation of his restriction. The topic of this article is in the field of theoretical physics is it not? Looking at the soruces for the secondary source article from MathWorld, three of the four are books on physics. --WGFinley (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say we can call it math. T. Canens (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I find the conduct of this user to continue to be disruptive and subject to repeated cases. This year alone March, July and twice in August he's been a subject here for his disruption either by editors or by Arbcom. Creating forks of an article under AfD or recreating an article under AfD is WP:GAME and a user under his restrictions should know better. Now banned from physics it appears he may be turning to mathematics. I would propose the following remedy:

  1. One week block, he's already had a one week block earlier but it's been some time, I think it's an appropriate duration.
  2. Admonishment not to extend disruptive behavior he is banned for in physics over to mathematics, if it continues further sanctions or requests to Arbcom may be necessary.

--WGFinley (talk) 04:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur. This was not catastrophically bad, but was a user tiptoeing around the edges of prior sanctions with more questionable behavior, and should be discouraged. The proposal by Wgfinley seems balanced from that point of view. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree with the above. T. Canens (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the one week block and the admonishment. I suggest that the enforcement be implemented after Brews ohare responds to the enforcement request because I see no point in actioning an enforcement against someone on a break. (I realize that this would delay closing this request but think that completely the paperwork in a timely manner is less important than implementing the block at the best time. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with keeping it open a bit but it mentions a few weeks, that seems entirely too long. I would propose keeping it open another week for him to respond, if nothing then we can move forward. --WGFinley (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Have reviewed Brews response, it doesn't cause me to change my position on the suggestion here. Stating an uninvolved admin needs to warn is WP:LAWYER at best and I believe not true in my read of the sanction. Editors shouldn't have to fetch an admin every time an editor under probation needs to be warned. Unless Arbcom has determined otherwise I would keep the same remedy. Thoughts?? --WGFinley (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  • This complaint on its own seems to me to be far from actionable. If the three diffs provided form part of a long-term pattern of unhelpful editing then we must have more illustration of that; or if Brews' actions had a considerable impact on the consensus-building then I would like to see that illustrated (eg., were the deletion discussions volatile or hotly contested?). Am I the only one missing something here? AGK 22:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I think the reason this was brought was because the article went to AfD and it looked like the consensus was for deletion. Brews started coming up with proposals to avoid deletion by proposing changes and then doing a new article. He should have let the AfD run its course, once it was done if he wants to take the comments there and try to craft a better article that would be reasonable. I think doing it in the middle of the process is disruptive and could be considered WP:GAME (i.e. creating a new article which would require its own AfD and forcing the process to start over). --WGFinley (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
      • If the consensus of the participants in the AFD was to delete the article then it would have been difficult for Brews to edit the article after the discussion had closed :-). And surely the trend of improving a page that is the subject of an XFD is not to be discouraged (and indeed, is the essence of the Article Rescue Squadron)? Certainly the creation of a duplicate article is questionable, but the administrator who closed the AFD on the original article would have simply deleted the duplicate per WP:CSD#G4 if the consensus was to delete. I still am seeing no attestable malicious intent on Brews' part. AGK 17:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
        • That's a straw man argument. Attestable malicious behavior is not required before placing a section. We don't know intentions so we look at the results of behavior. Do you think Brews ohare's style of commentary is helping or harming the discussion? Brews could help himself greatly by distilling his comments, and by refraining from repeating them. Jehochman Talk 20:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
          • I don't know. And as no evidence has been supplied to answer that question, I don't care either. This board is for evaluating complaints based on the material provided, rather than for users to start a thread on another editor and then wait for a block-worthy diff to be posted. I've repeatedly asked for evidence of a wider pattern of disruption, to no avail, so forgive me if I don't much care for your 'straw man' labelling!

            By the by: Are you uninvolved in this matter? AGK 20:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

            • Jehochman replied elsewhere[44] to my enquiry about his past interactions with Brews. For the record, he is uninvolved. AGK 12:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I definitely hear where you are coming from AGK but I think if you look at the disturbances that took place in various areas as a result of this it looks a lot like the behavior that brought him to Arbcom. On its face there doesn't appear to be much but you look at the totality of it and his responses here (essentially WP:NOTTHEM) it seems he continues to see no issues with what he's doing. --WGFinley (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • FloNight: As you support sanctioning Brews, could you please comment on the issues I raised? AGK 17:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • AGK, my background view: Many people under editing restrictions do not get them because their contributions are malicious. They may be well intended. Often the person is tendentious about their contributions in the area. They overwhelm existing processes to get to their own edits on Wikipedia to the point that they develop poor relations with other people in the topic area. Talk and Xfd discussions become tense and unpleasant. And from there the editor develops alternative ways to get his content into articles despite other editors repeatedly raising concerns about the overall helpfulness of the persons contributions. It is not unfair to ask someone to be more sensitive to the concerns of the majority of the people working in a topic area. Since it is not possible to stop the majority of the other users from responding negatively to the editors contributions, that editor is placed on restrictions if they are not able to modify their conduct and get along with the other users.
    • To the particulars of this situation: to my mind Brews is someone who is capable of making good contributions. But his contributions can be off the mark enough that other editors feel the need to look through them more closely than other peoples. So his new article got extra scrutiny. IMO, writing a new article came across as being tendentious in favor of his own edits. Since he is under editing restrictions we end up with this request for enforcement. While this is not an extremely problematic situation, I understand the reason for the request and WGFinley suggested enforcement. Brews needs to be more sensitive to how his content contributions and discussion comments come across to other people in order to lower the tensions around him. In the past, Brews has not been able to get this message with a casual request. So, I think that a short block or topic ban is not unreasonable in order to get his attention that he needs to work harder at making edits that stop editing disputes rather than being at the center of conflicts repeatedly. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 10:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Repy to Brews ohare: Thank you for reading my comment and making a thoughtful reply. One example of content being questioned by other editors would be the article at Afd that triggered this complaint. Opinions are mixed on whether the content is good. The mixed nature of the views is what makes the situation difficult because it causes strife between users. Also, your comments on talk pages do cause other editors to get frustrated. When I see an editor repeatedly at the center of disputes (which you have been repeatedly), I think that there is more that they can do to work collaboratively with other volunteer contributors. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I'd like to avoid placement of a sanction. If Brews gets the idea from this conversation, that is a good thing. Jehochman Talk 14:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Although I think that there are problematic contributions, I don't hold to the rigid view that all violations would require a block for enforcement. Since Brews took a lengthy break and then came back and is discussing the matter, I'm willing to defer a block and instead go with an admonishment/warning/caution to alter his contributions in order to stay out of the center of disputes. Let's get a few more opinions. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
          • I would be agreeable to letting this go without any sanctions if I saw some contrition or at the very least a promise to try to do better and avoid these types of disturbances. I haven't seen that yet though. --WGFinley (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with the proposed remedy that Wgfinley has posted below. One may doubt whether warnings to Brews have much effect, but the text of the remedy may serve as guidance for admins who consider future issues concerning Brews. Keep in mind that Brews often expresses uncertainty as to what the pronouncements here mean, so there is still a communication problem. Since Brews has been on Wikipedia a long time, I no longer feel that his unclarity on the issue is a matter that can easily be resolved by admins. Since WP:COMPETENCE is expected of Wikipedia editors, he ought to be able to grasp behavioral norms without constant explanation. By making slightly different choices he could have avoided making people mad in the AfD debate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Remedy[edit]

This AE has carried on far, too long, unless there are objections I would like to proceed with the following remedy:

Brews ohare is admonished:

  1. for his conduct concerning the AfDs for vector quadruple product and its forks.
  2. that he is topic banned from physics and such behaviors should not be carried over to mathematics and this AE serves as formal warning to him for the topic of mathematics.
  3. that he is still under probation, he should assume good faith when warned and warnings should be carefully considered without regard as to administrative status.
  4. that taking up editor time in disputes and administrator time on WP:AE is, in fact, a disturbance and he should comport himself to avoid such situations accordingly.

--WGFinley (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Agree, with the firm message being that Brews will be sanctioned with little hesitation should his conduct cause him to appear back here again under similar circumstances. AGK 12:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Brews: Evidently there are still issues with you understanding important information, so I will outline in turn why these four points are being incorporated into the admonishment:
  1. You created a copy of an article that was in the midst of an AFD discussion. You argue that you were trying to WP:Rescue the article from deletion, and part of that was by correcting the title; if that was the case, one would think you would have moved the page, rather than create a new page altogether. And although it is impossible to ascertain precisely what your motives in doing so were, one school of thought is that you created the new page to circumvent the consensus of the discussion. The fact that your action could have been perceived as an attempt to circumvent consensus, even if it was an innocent attempt to rescue an article from deletion, is enough to render your actions unwise—hence the admonishment.
  2. The first portion is a statement of fact. The second ("formal warning") is our attempt to have you conduct yourself more sensibly whilst editing articles relating to mathematics. "Sensibly" meaning working well with those editors you've been disagreeing with of late, and also not doing things like creating a fork of an AFD article. To your credit this does not mean acting civilly, because you always do that, but it does mean being receptive to what others are saying; talking to you is at times like talking to a brick wall, with no discernible element of compromise or even consideration that what the other side is saying might be correct.
  3. Obvious: you are under probation, so act like it. You have a bee in your bonnet about administrators, because we happen to be the people who have to action complaints about conduct.
  4. If you focus on content and not contributors and adhere to our NPOV policy, you will never end up at AE. Try following both these rules, is what this point is saying.
AGK 16:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree. Brews need to take in the opinion of uninvolved admins that his contribution on Wikipedia too often needlessly provoke conflict, so he needs to think through how he can change this dynamic with his contributions. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I am closing this request per Wgfinley's recommendations. This enforcement request was opened September 30, and this seems like a thorough discussion. Brews' responses have been heard. I am closing the request with no block and no further topic ban, but with the four admonitions listed above by Wgfinley. Admins should take the discussion here into account if the topic of Brews comes up again at WP:AE. A ban from mathematics articles should be one of the options considered if problems recur in that domain. If I were the sole judge of the closure I would personally have tightened the sanctions, but I'm just trying to follow the consensus of admins. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Lontech[edit]

Lontech (talk · contribs) is hereby banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to Kosovo, broadly construed. T. Canens (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Lontech[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Enric Naval (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Lontech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
"In addition, you will be required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk paged" based in WP:ARBMAC
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [45] 14 September. removes "cradle of Serbian culture", no edit summary and doesn't discuss in talk page
  2. [46] 23 September. removes same text a more neutral version of the same text, edit summary is only "rv, pov", doesn't post in the talk page discussion of that text
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. Lontech is aware of the restriction, since he has filed two reports based on it[47][48]
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Block of adequate length (optionally, place another temporal topic ban on Kosovo topics)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Lontech has removed twice the same sentence in 9 days, making no discussion in the talk page. The restriction requires that all content reversions are discussed. The talk page had an active discussion about this very same sentence.

Lontech, check your removals again:

  • 1st "Kosovo became the cradle of Serbian culture"
  • 2nd "Serbs came to consider Kosovo the cradle of Serbian culture"

The first text was POV and dab's comment applies. The second one was an improved version that was not POV. Maybe you didn't realize that the text had changed? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[49]

Discussion concerning Lontech[edit]

Statement by Lontech[edit]

I dont see a violation of rules

Thanks for clarifying that Revere was after 1 week ( 9 days later ) so there is no 1RR violation

Regarding Discussion: It was and still it is clear pov . Dab has explained very well

afaik it is undisputed that Kosovo was populated with a Serbian majority prior to 1800 just as it is undisputed that there is an Albanian majority now. As for "cradle", the Serbs as an ethnicity began to articulate from a generic South Slavic population in the 6th to 9th century. There was no territory coterminous with Kosovo prior to the 19th century so it can hardly be the cradle of Serbian culture. According to our Serbs article, " The first Serb states were Rascia, Doclea, Travunia, Pagania and Zachlumia." It is undisputed that what is now Kosovo is a part of these territories, but I see no evidence that it was in any sense more of a "cradle" than any other part. "Kosovo" got its relevance only in the wake of 1389, long after Serbian culture had emerged. So yes, what is now Kosovo used to be part of medieval Serbia, but no, I see no evidence it was a "cradle" (or ?"crux") in any particular sense. --dab (𒁳) 16:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

or It has been required to copy and paste again dabs coment.-- LONTECH  Talk  17:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that Dab's remark lies within a cluster of other statements on the talk page; this paragraph did not conclude the discussion as it has continued. Several editors have left notes. Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Lontech[edit]

Per multiple disputed actions, and per some previous and contemporary personal attacks (diff, Lontech - ethnic attacks at ANI, reported by SarekOfVulcan) and pov pushing by this user, some urgent reaction is required regarding this request. User was blocked indef by J.delanoy, but unblocked also by him after agreement to follow the rules. It looks like that agreement is forgotten by Lontech. --WhiteWriter speaks 12:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Lontech[edit]

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

The point of a discussion restriction is to get people to discuss. It's not an "each side can make a post on talk page and then revert with impunity" restriction. The violations are unambiguous, and given that a time-limited topic ban on Kosovo related topics has been imposed once already, I'm opting for a indefinite ban on this violation. Under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, Lontech (talk · contribs) is hereby banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to Kosovo, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed as provided in WP:ARBMAC#Appeal of discretionary sanctions. T. Canens (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur. --WGFinley (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Shutterbug[edit]

The requested remedy is ultra vires of this forum, please go to AN with this request. Courcelles 04:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Shutterbug[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
-- Cirt (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Shutterbug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
  1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS
  2. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Shutterbug_topic-banned_and_restricted
  3. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Account_limitation
  4. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Editors_instructed
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 03:33, 2 June 2009 - Blocked 24 hours for violation of topic ban.
  2. 19:57, 17 May 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Wobblegenerator, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
  3. 18:12, 19 May 2010 - Shutterbug sockmaster account indef blocked, for sockpuppetry.
  4. 20:28, 24 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:MrSimmonds, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
  5. 20:29, 24 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:JessaRinaldi, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
  6. 22:57, 24 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Jbsweden9, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
  7. 01:59, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:AlexJohnTorres12, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
  8. 03:42, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Jimgreensboro, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
  9. 03:44, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Mike Greenwood, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
  10. 03:45, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Monsignore, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
  11. 03:49, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Fairyday, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
  12. 20:25, 24 September 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Margaret's son, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. 01:31, 29 May 2009 - Notice of WP:ARBSCI restrictions by Mailer diablo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  2. 03:31, 2 June 2009 - Block notice for violation of topic ban by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  3. 17:06, 19 May 2010 - Indef block notice for sockpuppetry by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Upgrade, from existing indef block to ban.

  1. The account is already subject to probation, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Article_probation.
  2. The account is already topic-banned, and restricted to one account, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Shutterbug_topic-banned_and_restricted.
  3. After violating probation, violating the topic-ban, violating the restriction to one account, and violating site policy on sockpuppetry, the account has been indef blocked.

Request this be changed to a ban. -- Cirt (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning Shutterbug[edit]

Statement by Shutterbug[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Shutterbug[edit]

Result concerning Shutterbug[edit]

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

Not an AE matter; please take it to AN for a community ban discussion. T. Canens (talk) 04:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will do. -- Cirt (talk) 04:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Understood, alright, thank you. Will take advice of T. Canens. -- Cirt (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community_ban_for_User:Shutterbug. -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Martintg[edit]

Blocked for one week.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Martintg[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Offliner (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:EEML#Modified_by_open_motion_6:
  • Martintg (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics, until December 22, 2010 (one year from the closing of the original case).
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [50] (the edit in question is in the very heart of the national and ethnic disputes of Eastern Europe: World War II, the occupation of the Baltic states, Russia-Baltic relations, etc. (See this or this for background.) Martintg's edit was reverted as "tendentious" by a neutral editor [51]) According to User:Piotrus the editor in question is "respected by both sides"[52]
  2. [53]
  3. [54]
  4. [55]
  5. [56] (Holocaust in the Baltic States is a key area of nationalistic EE disputes, see this for Guardian article for background)
  6. [57]
  7. [58] (edit reverted by another editor [59])
  8. [60] Martintg continued to edit war, and his edit was reverted again as WP:OR [61] Communist atrocities are the root cause of the EE disputes.
  9. [62] "Of all the totalitarian regimes, that of the Soviet Union was, between 1929 and 1953, the most perfect embodiment of state terrorism"
  10. [63]
  11. [64] Martintg created an article about a novel which is about "deportation to Stalin's gulags of those Estonians deemed to have collaborated during the 1941-44 German occupation"
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [65] Warning by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  2. [66] Warning by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  3. [67] Warning by Henrik (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  4. [68] Warning by arbitrator User:SirFozzie: "there's not much wiggle room here, and that a return to previous behaviors will mean it's near-immediate reinstatement."
  5. [69] Warning by arbitrator User:Newyorkbrad (who drafted the latest version of the topic ban): there is "a strong expectation that the problematic behaviors addressed in the original decision must not recur."
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Block and reset of topic ban
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
In short, Martintg has been violating his topic ban from the very beginning. Two days after the WP:EEML arbitration ended and Martintg had received his topic ban, Martintg was already back in action at Mass killings under Communist regimes: [70] (Confirmation by an arbitrator that this the subject falls within the topic ban: [71]). Several of his violations led to direct warnings by admins: [72] (Confirmation of violation and warning by an admin: [73]) Violation of Martintg's Russavia interaction ban: [74] Yet another warning by an admin: [75] After the latest amendment, the violations increased. In the amendment request, Martintg tried to get his ban lifted completely so that he could again participate in editing about ethnic and national disputes within Eastern Europe [76]. ArbCom only agreed to a narrowing of the topic ban, with editing in ethnic and national disputes still prohibited: [77]. As the diffs above indicate, Martintg ignored this and decided to return to the ethnic and national disputes anyway. The next day after his topic ban was narrowed, Martintg immediately immediately went to create an article about a book which discusses deportations of Estonians in the Soviet Union.[78]. If that's not an egregious violation of his topic ban - which prohibits national and ethnic disputes - then I don't know what is.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[79]

Discussion concerning Martintg[edit]

Statement by Martintg[edit]

Frankly, I'm not surprised that Offliner is attempting to game WP:AE and wikilawyer that I have some how breached my topic ban, I predicted this may well happen during my amendment request here, and it has come to pass. It's not the first time Offliner has attempted to game the system, having had me permanently blocked for WP:OUTING until some level headed admins realised an hour later his claims were bogus[80]. I said to the drafting Arbitrator Newyorkbrad at the time of my amendment request that I will be going back to ArbCom should this happen to seek further clarifcation and possibly an interaction ban[81], and I will be filing such a request to ArbCom in coming days.

In the mean time a few comments regarding the specifics of this vexatious complaint:

  1. The amendment significantly narrows the scope of the topic ban, significantly the term "widely construed" is no longer present and my good faithed understanding is that the restriction would be relevant to articles like Kuril Islands dispute, Bronze Night and Anti-Estonian sentiment which have been the primary locus of disruption in the past and are all articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes respectively, and I have avoided such articles despite the recent attention of my past opponents[82].
  2. All of the diffs supplied are articles outside the scope of that restriction:
    1. State continuity of the Baltic states is a interesting topic of international law and how it applies to the status of the Baltic states, it is a new sub-article of Occupation of the Baltic states which was split this year due to size. Prior to that the parent article was stable for years without disruption, as the article history shows.
    2. Jägala concentration camp is an article about a Nazi concentration camp and the numbers related to the murders carried out there. It is news to me that Holocaust in the Baltic States is "a key area of nationalistic EE disputes", everyone I know agrees it was a terribly heinous crime. I had just recently purchased Anton Weiss-Wendt's excellent book on the Holocaust in Estonia which happen to have some data on Jägala concentration camp, so I updated the article accordingly.
    3. Communist terrorism is about the influence of leftist ideology on modern terrorism, their ideology was based on class, not ethnicity or nationalism.
    4. Offliner takes issue with the creation of the article Purge (novel), yet the arbitrators are fully aware that the Soviet period had a significant impact on the arts in Estonia, as my first diff above shows. It is virtually impossible to write about anything about the arts without reference to occupation, that's a fact of life, I brought that to the attention of the arbs and they seemed okay with it.
    5. Offliner even cites nominating the article Operation Pike for DYK, and which the Arbitrator Rlevse credits a DYK to me[83], as a topic ban violation, for crying out loud!
  3. The diffs given in the section of "notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to" all significantly predate the amended topic ban, by up to nine months, so I don't see how these stale diffs can be seen as fair warning that I am violating my current topic ban.
  4. The diffs given in the section "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" are also over nine months old, so I don't see the relevance to the new topic ban regime here.

--Martin (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Petri Krohn[edit]

The central and core issue in the Eastern European disputes – as it relates to Estonia and other Baltic republics – is the claimed state continuity of the Baltic states in exile (hist). On one side there is the point-of-view that the Baltic republics were under military occupation by the Soviet Army from 1940 to 1991 or 1992 or even 1994. On the other side there is the point-of-view, that the claimed Soviet occupation of the Baltic States – outside the very narrow context of the one-sided Soviet reinterpretation of the 1939 Military Bases Agreement in June 1940 and associated troop deployments – is nothing more than falsification of history and its inclusion in Wikipedia constitutes a fringe WP:POVFORK on the articles on the Soviet Baltic republics, i.e. Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR, and Lithuanian SSR.

A related dispute exist around the “Double Genocide movement” – or the point-of-view that “Red equals Brown”; that “Soviet crimes” equal or exceed Nazi crimes. An sampling of opinions in this heated real-world debate is available at Holocaust in the Baltics web site maintained by Dovid Katz, see Media Chronicle. Note, that the collection contains op-ed pieces in The Guardian this very week. Notable pundits in this debate include Imbi Paju (hist) and Sofi Oksanen (hist) – as well her novel Purge (hist) – and most likely the Baltic-American Freedom Foundation (hist).

As the sources above also demonstrate, material to the EE disputes is the the Holocaust in Estonia, including key articles like Jägala concentration camp (hist), Kalevi-Liiva (hist) and Omakaitse (diff), and the claimed Estonian glorification of Nazism, a topic directly linked to the article Erna Raid (hist). .

Martintg'a edits to less controversial subjects mainly push his point-of-view relating these issues:

In fact, looking at Martintg's edit history, the only article I can find that is not directly related to the current Russian–Estonian information war is the one on Jacob Johann Köhler (1698–1757).

The fact that Martintg has not been confronted because of his recent edits should not be considered as tacit acceptance of his actions. This is a very long running dispute and those on the other side have learned to value patience. His edits have been closely followed – with awe and despair. What finally forced Offliner to take action was this formal warning to Martintg by user Igny today. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Martintg[edit]

  • I personally do not like some of the items listed as evidence, especially the last 2. For the others, Martintg may be pushing the envelope on this with the other edits, however. Suggest to disengage just so you do not trip the remedy. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 13:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Underlying issue is the fact that concentration camps can lead to ethnic disputes, and the state continuity article looks to be dealing with international disputes within EE. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 14:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
      • A national dispute is a dispute concerning nations or peoples. International disputes most definitely are a subset of this. Also, concentration camps and the Holocaust in the Baltic States is in the heart of severe Eastern European disputes [84] (the link is very much recommended reading for anyone who wishes to get a basic overview of what Eastern European disputes are about, before commenting). Offliner (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
        • The author of that Guardian article, Dovid Katz, resides in Lithuania, and the article almost exclusively discusses the situation in Lithuania. I'm not familiar with the situation in Lithuania, but I do know there is absolutely no dispute in Estonia regarding the Holocaust, reports have written apportioning blame, memorials have been built, remembrance days promulgated, synagogues built. There simply is no dispute. --Martin (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The ban as cited by Offliner - Martintg is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe does not seem to include disputes concerning Communism, Socialism or other ideologies and the directly related events like Communist terror. I don't know what the intentions of the drafters of this remedy were, but it seems to be phrased in a manner that doesn't really ban Martin from topics like Communism, just from national disputes. In sum, I concur with the view of Penwhale. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 13:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Martintg's work during the EEML was covered by nationalistic disputes and topics such "Communist genocide" and "Occupation of the Baltic states", exactly the type that Martintg engages in again. If edits like [85], with Martintg inserting material such as
"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia has announced that the distortion of history and allegations of unlawful occupations are the main reasons for the problems in the Baltic–Russia relations"
or "The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe noted the Soviet Union violated the right of the Baltic people to self-determination. The acts of 1940 had resulted in occupation and illegal annexation."
has nothing to do with national disputes between the Baltic States and Soviet Union/Russia, then I don't know what does. The same goes for the Holocaust (ethnic killing of jews) in Estonia [86], or creating an article about a book on ethnic deportations of Estonians within the Soviet Union - if they don't have anything to do with ethnic disputes in Eastern Europe, then what does? Offliner (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The novel is a bad example. I'll use Sophie's Choice to illustrate why. Sophie's Choice deals with a choice made by the titular character at Auschwitz during Holocaust. Can Martintg, then, not edit that article either? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 14:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course he can edit Sophie's Choice, because it's not about ethnic disputes in Eastern Europe, as is the book which is about ethnic deportations of Estonians in the Soviet Union. Offliner (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
That is simply not true. The communist deported many ethnicities from Estonia, ethnic Russians, Jews as well as ethnic Estonians. Many ethnic Estonians sided with the communists too. Ethnicity played no part, it was loyalty to the communist ideology and rule that determined who was deported. --Martin (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
RE:Offliner. The “book on ethnic deportations of Estonians” you are referring to is not exactly about disputes. I think your interpretation of the Arbcom sanction would expands the scope of that remedy too much. Whereas I'd say that the Serb-Croatian relations in 1990s can be described as Eastern European ethnic disputes (or take Abkhaz-Georgian conflict for example), in contrast I disagree with the assumption that disputes regarding communism, per definition an unnational ideology, automatically fall under this topic ban. What we need, is some kind of explanation by the Arbcom, that would clarify the scope of the remedy concerned. And AFAIK, Jägala concentration camp is by no means a subject of ethnic or national dispute, neither here nor off-wiki. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 14:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • As I said above, I brought to the attention of the Arb's who drafted the amendment the fact that the arts are deeply influenced by the Soviet occupation, and it is impossible to write anything about it without mentioning it. He was okay with that, indicating that he had something else in mind when he drafted the amendment, than what Offliner is attempting to construe here. No point in second guessing what the intent was, so I'm going to seek clarification from the Arbs with a formal request. --Martin (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Martintg has also recently edited Communist terrorism and participated in discussions on the talk page. A request for clarification has decided that this article comes under the Eastern European topic ban. TFD (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Could we please have both opinions and enforcement by an uninvolved and impartial administrator(s)? Jehochman enforcing a ban to Martintg is completely inappropriate. As for Martintg's behavior, how about warning and explanation first, what topics can be considered disallowed for him, not just a blind hit with a banhammer which is just damaging to Wikipedia. As it is obvious, he did not realize that editing articles far from national disputes can be artificially constructed to be a violation of the narrowed topic ban - and no one can say his edits have been damaging or bad. --Sander Säde 18:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Martintg[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
I have blocked Martintg for one week for an obvious violation of his topic ban. The first diff [87] alone is sufficient evidence. Jehochman Talk 15:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with that this diff was a violation and enforcement of the sanction was appropriate. Further, getting into edit wars or pov contributions on topics "slightly" outside of the current editing restriction (which is evident in some of the diffs) would not reduce or eliminate the need for action, but instead would trigger a block AND call for a return to broader editing restrictions. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I too agree that the edits were in violation of the restriction. Fut.Perf. 18:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

83.147.186.140[edit]

IP warned; no further action necessary.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning 83.147.186.140[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
O Fenian (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
83.147.186.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [88] First revert to IP's previous version
  2. [89] Second revert to same version, within 24 hours of the first
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [90] Warning by O Fenian (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Block (currently blocked for 12 hours, as of 15:47 UTC)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
I explained what the problem was with the edit, and was largely ignored. 3 minutes before making the second revert, the IP removed the notice, so were clearly aware of the restriction. O Fenian (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[91]

Discussion concerning 83.147.186.140[edit]

Statement by 83.147.186.140[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning 83.147.186.140[edit]

Result concerning 83.147.186.140[edit]

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

I have added an explanation of why the policy exists to the editor's talk page. Suggest we leave this open for a while, and if the editor violates the remedy again after the 12 hr block expires, impose a one week block. If the editor complies, I don't see a need for further action. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any more edits from that IP since October 13. Unless they switched to another IP this can probably be closed. T. Canens (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Closing this now. AGK 23:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

1RR at Climatic Research Unit email controversy[edit]

Per the Climate Change arbitration I've removed the probation notice from Climatic Research Unit email controversy. [92] There was a related notice imposing a 1RR rule on that article under the probation. I've decided to bring that here to let uninvolved admins decide whether to renew the 1RR on that article under the discretionary sanctions. --TS 11:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it best to renew all the (article and user) sanctions imposed under the probation under the discretionary sanctions; appeals can then be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. This is probably less time and resource consuming than the alternative. T. Canens (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Specific to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article, given the recent reverting of the article (see history) the 1RR rule needs to stay on this article. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I note that in this discussion, Kirill indicated that all the sanctions imposed by the now closed Climate change sanctions noticeboard would continue to be in force. Cardamon (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree with T. Canens. --WGFinley (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley[edit]

Marknutley (talk · contribs) blocked 1 week; Petri Krohn (talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User requesting enforcement 
The Four Deuces
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Marknutley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Digwuren case 1RR on Mass killings under Communist regimes.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

First revert: 17:45, 13 October 2010 (remove POV pushing "Some anti communists"? Seriously?)[93]

Second revert: 15:37, 14 October 2010 (rv this is being discussed, why insert it before a consensus is reached?)[94]

Third revert: 17:12, 14 October 2010 (rv BLP exemption you can`t call a BLP an anti communist without solid reliable sourceing)[95]

Enforcement action requested (block).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
mark nutley is well aware of the 1RR restriction on this article having earlier warned another editor.[96][97]
TFD (talk) 16
22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Reply to mark nutley
There are two discussion threads concerning this edit,[98][99] in which you and I and other editors have participated, and as your comments there make clear is a continuation of the ongoing disagreement over neutrality of the article, particularly the lede. TFD (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes there is is a continuation of the ongoing disagreement over neutrality of the article, so why did you choose to make matters worse by reinserting contentious text which was under discussion? mark (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment 
Following mark nutley's reply below, he has now reverted a third time, which I have added to the list above. TFD (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
You think removing a BLP violation ought to be sanctioned? How peculiar mark (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
If you believed that referring to a specific scholar was a BLP violation, you could have merely removed his name. TFD (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Or better yet, you could have simply removed the word "anti-communist" you objected to. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Reply to SPhilbrick 
Three other editors have also reinserted the sentence. While the sentence is unsourced so is the rest of the lead with one exception. I realize that I should have added sources and in fact provided them in the discussion pages. TFD (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Reply to 2over0
This article is under a 1RR restriction and you have now complained about editors on both sides who made one edit. If you believe the article should be under a 0RR restriction then please add one, rather than penalize editors using a retroactive ruling. Also, editors new to the article may not realize that 1RR will be interpreted as 0RR. The best way to impliment a 0RR restriction is of course to lock down the article. It is further unfair that you have listed editors who have had no opportunity to reply. If you do not remove these warnings I will complain at the ANI noticeboard. TFD (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mark Nutley[edit]

Well obviously i made a mistake here and seeking a block over this is petty beyond belief, blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive and i am obviously not edit warring here. The first diff shows when i removed the text. However i went straight to the talk page [100] to begin discussing what is obviously a contentious addition. The only remark TFD has made in this debate was This is a topic that does not exist in the academic mainstream and the article should not pretend that it does. TFD (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC) then he proceeded to reinsert the text knowing full well it was contentious and under debate. This is disruptive behaviour. This was an honest mistake on my part and i think a block is a bit much mark (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

One other thing, two editors recently broke the revert someone go straight to talk rule, i told them of it and even though they did not go to the talk page to explain i did not seek enforcement against them. Because everyone makes the odd mistake. Trying to get someone blocked because you disagree with them is a bit much for me. mark (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Collect[edit]

The insertion of an unsourced claim involing living people into the lede is the real problem. I would suggest the "some anti-communists" phrasing was to indicate that only a minority of an extreme class of some sort supported the statement. Nikita Krushchev is clearly, in this context, an "anti-communist." I suggest the seven or so AfD discussions about the page are germane in understanding the conflict between those who have iterated desires to delete the page as being "anti-communist" and (the prevailing view) that the article is proper in Wikipedia mainspace. Collect (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WRT any belief that only the person being complained about can be sanctioned - such has not been the prior rule. Collect (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
WRT "mechanical enforcement" it is clear that User:Petri Krohn is in the category of "two reverts in under ninety minutes" per [101] at 18:22 today and [102] at 16:57 today (the Rummel addition was in addition to a specific revert - not just an addition to extant text). Collect (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
WRT any claim that introducing the same sentence twice after it had been removed is somehow not two reverts bends the definition of "revert" as used in WP on its head. There is no question that the reverts each introduced the same language which had been removed - though the second also added a few more words. That does not, however, change the fact that each was, indeed, a revert under WP policies. Collect (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
WRT "Digwuren" - I would suggest that the use of Digwuren as a piece of lycra may be stretching it further than the arbitrators who desiced that case ever intended. Digwuren was primarily about Estonian history, and was stretched to be for Eastern Europe. The further stretching to encompass primarily pre-WWII Soviet history and post war Asian history seems like having a person put a size 12 foot into a size 2 shoe. Further Digwuren states " if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Where a 1RR exists on an article which should not even be under Digwuren, that "normal editorial process" has been abrogated as a standard. Also the actual behaviour dealt with by the decision was "in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies " which has not occurred on the article in question. Indeed, Digwuren does not anticipate 1RR restrictions being placed on an article but refers to restrictions on editors after warning has been given. Indeed zero articles were placed under general restrictions until three years after the decision - thus it is clear the original arbitrators did not anticipate this as a "solution" at all. I would note that for some odd reason I am now banned from editing anything about the London victory parade of 1946 as an example of the lycra being used. Clearly the use of Digwuren has now reached "reductio as absurdam" to be sure. Collect (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning mark nutley[edit]

  • The original insertion of the sentence Some anti-communists assert that these mass killings in communist states are a direct result of communist doctrine. [103] could charitably be construed as the first step of BRD cycle, although most editors would realize such a statement requires a solid reference.
  • Nutley's first revert [104] is the logical next step in a BRD cycle.
  • Nutley's post to the talk page, two minutes later [105] is the initiation of the third step of the BRD cycle, in a timely way.
  • TFD's reinsertion of the material [106] is quite inappropriate, given the lack of consensus of the discussion. Had TFD not seen the discussion, perhaps it could be forgiven, but TFD participated in the talk page discussion.
  • Nutley's removal of the material, under current discussion, but not yet agreed to, [107] is technically a violation of the1RR, because, while the next calendar day, it is less than 24 hours later. For that MN should be admonished lightly, but the edit summary (this is being discussed, why insert it before a consensus is reached?) makes clear that MN was trying to follow the BRD cycle. TFD deserves more serious admonishment for knowingly re-inserting unsourced contentious material even while a discussion is in progress.--SPhilbrickT 17:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • - Well presented, from your evaluation I support a block for the User:The_Four_Deuces for escalating the dispute and then making a report in an attempt to have user Mark Nutley blocked. User:Petri_Krohn reinserted it again also, replacement of disputed content as disruptive in the middle of a discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
SphilBrick is correct and i withdraw this, now has another thing in it mark (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Petri has reinserted the same basic stuff again [108] so has also broken 1r by the looks of it mark (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a total missrepresentation of my edits. I have not made i single blind revert. My first edit addressed the weasel words issue objected to by Collect and others, My second edit introduced totally new content. The "basic old stuff" referred to "Some anti-communists". My version refers to Cold war propaganda "some scholars" and R. J. Rummel. Linking communist ideology to mass killings is the subject of the article, so I cannot understand why you object to it being included in the lede. WP:BRD allows me to make more than one edit to the article per day, even when it is subject to a 1RR limitation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
There better be doubt, that is not my IP address at all. And i resent that accusation mark (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
And looking at the ip`s talk page Lawrence of Arabia (film) he was warned for making PA`s on that article, i have never even edited that article mark (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
And the first edit to mass killings [109] was in an edit war over the POV tag which i was not involved in mark (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
And the guy edit Reefer Madness [110] i never even heard of that never mind edited it. Please retract your allegation mark (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Fully convinced, I retract my allegation. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, i`m going to move this to the hatted area above mark (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

<-I urge avoidance of Wikipedia:Coatrack. The action of Mark are clearly relevant, as are the actions of The Four Deuces, both because TFD brought the action, and because the TFD insertion and revert of the insertion are the edits in question. While others are involved in what is shaping up to be an edit war, if not there already, dragging in Petri's edit should not be done here. If someone find's problems with Petri's edits (and I do not), I think they should be addressed separately, to avoid turning this into a tar baby.SPhilbrickT 19:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm not a fan of those who block shop to get the upper hand in content disputes, particularly when they themselves have also been involved in edit warring. FWIW, recent practice on this board has seen the requesting party and other involved parties sanctioned. Given that there is no evidence of any formal warning having been previously logged (discretionary sanctions explicitly require a formal notice to be placed on a user's page before being blocked under the provision), the best course of action is to formally warn both TFD and Marknutley via formal notice and protect the article for a month. --Martin (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a raging edit war at that article right now. Participants should be summarily blocked for disruption. Those who have previously been warned should get a logged block under the sanction. Edit wars like this should never happen on articles under discretionary sanctions, because they shouldn't be allowed on any article. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that a case can be made, that we would need a source in the lede section if we were to imply, as I did, that R. J. Rummel is an anti-communist. If this truly was the issue, it would have been remedied by removing the word "anti-communist" from "some anti-communist scholars". Instead, Mark chose to make the third blind revert to his preferred version in less than 24 hours. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
None of the reverts were blind reverts petri, in fact on the one were i erred (the second) i went straight to the talk page to explain why. As i had with the first. If you wish to imply the a BLP writes anti communist propaganda then you need solid sources, it was a clear BLP violation and you should not have added it in mark (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1RR doesn't mean "no blind reverts." I don't know why these arguments are being made. I cannot believe that participants in this edit war are still discussing it here now and have not been blocked. --TS 21:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I was not edit warring tony, i made a mistake is all. And i believe people ought to be allowed to say their piece before being blocked, don`t you? mark (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Strangely enough. no. Participation in edit wars is a trigger for a block. Participation in edit wars when you've been warned of discretionary sanctions is a trigger for a good long block. --TS 21:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I was`nt warned about discretionary sanctions, just the 1r restriction and that if you revert you have to go to the talk page mark (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


It's now two days after the original report so if the bad behavior has stopped suggest that a warning is appropriate, but obviously not a block. If he does this again I suggest a summary block will be adequate. No need to have yet another turgid discussion. --TS 11:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Petri Krohn[edit]

Some people are making very serious accusations against me, namely that I have

  1. edit warred
  2. broken the 1RR rule

Both claims are unfounded. My edits fall within WP:BRD, as I will demonstrate with diffs. Per Wikipedia:Edit warring, BRD is not edit warring: This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle, and is not edit warring. My edits were intended to produce a compromise version everyone could agree on, and thus end the revert cycle. I was also fully aware, that if I failed to stop the edit warring by a suitable compromise, the article would be protected from editing.

Here is a list of edits today, with a diff to the previous version closest to the new version:

My two edits. Both edits introduce new content.

  • 1 – introduces R. J. Rummel, addresses weasel words issue objected to by Collect
  • 2 – totally deferent content: "Cold War anti-communists propaganda", + new reference.

For comparison, here is a list of edits by other editors today. All are blind reverts to a previous version.

With eight blind reverts (+ Mark's original revert), it is clear that an edit war has been going on. I have not been involved in this edit war.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  • - Comment - WP:BRD is only an essay and is not an excuse to violate one revert article restriction. Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    ResponseWikipedia:Edit warring is a policy, that is where my citation originates from. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Response to T. Canens – Re: "R. J. Rummel, which has been a disputed point" – No, there is no dispute that R. J. Rummel sees a causality between communism and mass killings, this is the central topic of the article and the one and only thing everyone working on this article can agree on. What was disputed by Mark Nutley was the characterization of R. J. Rummel as an anti-communist. My second edit made no such claim or inference. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Response to EdJohnston – One can only "technically" break WP:3RR of 1RR if one is edit warring. Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is – a Wikipedia policy – explicitly states that "This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle, and is not edit warring." I follow a voluntary 0 RR rule on all disputed topics and edit to find compromise solutions. I feel that it is a serious missrepresentation to portray either one of my edits, least both of them, as edit warring. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    P.S. – I have asked the arbitration committee for clarification on the issue here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: DIGWUREN. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Zloyvolsheb[edit]

Collect's accusation that Petri Krohn has violated 1RR appears to be unfounded. The two diffs he provides [111] and [112] for Petri Krohn's edits on that day are simply showing us that Petri made two different edits to one section of the article.

The first is a general statement that "Some anti-communists assert that these mass killings in communist states are a direct result of communist doctrine", the second the referenced assertion that "Linking communist ideology to mass killings became a recurring theme in Cold War anti-communists propaganda. [ref to Victor Vashi...]" These edits are actually expressing two semantically different propositions, however otherwise related thematically they may be. (No terrible wonder, given that they are both propositions inserted into the same article by Petri Krohn, whose background, personality, and interest in history are much the same as Petri Krohn's.) It's very true that Petri's earlier edit is partially a revert to text that someone inserted earlier, but that, unlike Marknutley's editing, still counts for only one revert. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment by SandyGeorgia[edit]

I note that ten minutes after The Four Deuces reverted Marknutley,[113] Jrtayloriv made his first edit ever to this article to make the same revert.[114] This is similar to the editing that occurs at the Venezuela/Hugo Chavez articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I made my first edit to the article after being involved in the talk page discussion for a week, to revert a non-consensual change by a long-term disruptive editor. I'm not sure what you mean by "This is similar to "editing that occurs at the Venezuela/Hugo Chavez articles". Were you trying to say that there has been a time where myself and TFD have agreed that an edit should be reverted? (GASP!) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Response to EdJohnston, given that all participants have all been formally notified on their talk pages as a consequence of the AE report and the notifications logged, your proposed additional blocks appear to be somewhat punitive in nature and serves no real purpose since the page in question has now been protected for a month. --Martin (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with Martin. In addition, the very way the term "revert" is defined frequently creates a situation when a good faith editor violates a 1RR only technically. I agree that this rule makes the administrator's life easier, however, since the administrators are just a service personnel who provide normal conditions for good faith editors' work, something is definitely wrong with this rule. In any event, I doubt technical 1RR violation should be taken into account in the situation when the editor has no opportunity to self-revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning mark nutley[edit]

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

Arbitration sanctions are not negotiable, and marknutley has clearly violated this one after acknowledging that it applies. Misbehavior by other editors is not at issue here: if they have violated the sanctions, a separate enforcement request should be opened. My inclination is to impose a 1 week block. Looie496 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Looie496's comment above. It's hard to see how we will get people to respect an article-level Digwuren sanction unless it is mechanically enforced. (Also, most people who are editing this article would know this is a hot-potato article that has caused lots of trouble in the past). So I support the 1-week block of Marknutley for a 1RR violation. It is hardly shocking to put down R. J. Rummel as an anti-communist even though the wording about him might be tweaked. BLP is not usually accepted as an excuse in 3RR situations unless it is blatant defamatory material. Even if we were to accept the BLP excuse then Nutley's three reverts in 24 hours would be reduced to two, which is still a violation of 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree with one week block. I also notified MN formally about the discretionary sanctions. Note that notification is not required for the 1RR block; the editnotice on the page serves as the warning, per ArbCom clarification. T. Canens (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Also note that I have blocked 72.20.28.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 24 hours for 1RR violation. That's the only two 1RR violators I can see from the history. T. Canens (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I missed the one Collect pointed out. I'm inclined to impose a 1 week block on Petri Krohn (talk · contribs) as well, given the history. T. Canens (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Let me note that, having been an admin for all of four days, I don't yet feel quite ready to take actions in cases like this, so in spite of the wording of my initial statement, I am going to leave this to somebody with more experience to resolve. Looie496 (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, the disputed clause first appeared in the article in this edit by Rick Norwood (talk · contribs) as part of a largely stylistic update to the lead. Marknutley (talk · contribs) removed that sentence three times over the next day, claiming the BLP exemption on the third. As noted above, no attempt was made to edit the remaining text to bring it in line with policy; reading Rummel's article, I do not think that the characterization qualifies for the exemption, but I think that its assertion is credible. The some anti-communists sentence was added today by The Four Deuces (talk · contribs), Jrtayloriv (talk · contribs), and Rick Norwood, and was removed by Marknutley, Collect (talk · contribs), and the IP noted above. Petri Krohn (talk · contribs) attempted compromise wording twice, responding to both the weasel words and the lack of sourcing. He might have been better served with a little more patience, but I do not find fault with Petri Krohn's edits here, despite his history with the article. T. Canens has already added Marknutley to the Digwuren case, and I am adding Jrtayloriv, Rick Norwood, The Four Deuces, and Collect as well for participating in an edit war.
I protected the article earlier today unrelated to this thread. That protection was not taken under the auspices of discretionary sanctions, and may be reversed without invocation of wheel warring (though I would appreciate a note letting me know). - 2/0 (cont.) 22:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
[115] is a revert because it restored text removed by Collect; and [116] is a revert because it reintroduced the reference to R. J. Rummel, which has been a disputed point. I agree though that there is an attempt at compromise wording here - which ought to be encouraged - but the proper way to do so is to propose such wording on the talk page, especially after the first attempt was reverted; I would agree to a shorter block here, say, 31 hours? T. Canens (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that the change in context and attempt at compromise in the second edit are enough to get him off the hook, but only marginally. I would not object to your proposed block if you think it best. An article-but-not-talk ban might also work, but I worry about dragging this case out too much. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree this is edit warring, but I am concerned this is stretching Digiwuren beyond its intent. The sanction was written somewhat broadly, but the infractions that generated it were much more narrow. The aspects of this article that relate to the Digiwuren related topic material more specifically, I can see a case for applying it to, but this was a generic section in the lede of an article which covers much more ground than Digiwuren applied to.
I'm willing to go with consensus on this, but ... Let's think it through a bit, ok? Whacking everyone for edit warring a bit is fine, I agree that happened. But we shouldn't stretch AE out of whack on marginal cases. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
In response to the other admin comments, I suggest one week to MN, but a shorter block (24-31 hours) to Petri Krohn who technically violated 1RR, but was trying to add new material to address others' objections. (In response to him, BRD does not confer an exception to 1RR). The month of full protection imposed by 2over0 would be maintained unless peace breaks out. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree. T. Canens (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree. --WGFinley (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
This has dragged on long enough. Since there does not appear to be objection from uninvolved administrators, I've implemented the blocks. T. Canens (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, this is an interesting question. We know that discretionary sanctions may be applied to an editor editing in a topic area regardless of whether the specific action barred by the sanctions falls within that area, at least as long as the action has some connection to it (e.g., interaction bans). We also know that article-level sanctions, such as 1RR, are permitted. So the question, then, is whether an 1RR imposed on an article that has some parts, but not all, within the area of conflict, for good cause, applies to the entire article or only the related parts? I think it is preferable to apply it to the whole article, for otherwise we might get countless disputes over whether a specific edit is "related" enough to trigger 1RR when it is supposed to be a bright-line rule that is easily administered. This would be utterly unworkable in practice. T. Canens (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Newcomers Rendahl and Poznan edit warring on climate change articles[edit]

Rendahl blocked indef as SciBaby sock, Poznan given notice of discretionary sanctions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This is a delicate one. There are two new editors:

Strictly speaking Poznan's account goes back a couple of years but in that time he had only made 18 edits on two articles, one about an Aberdonian artist and the other about a researcher in psychology from Dundee, which latter article Poznan himself created.

I've warned Rendahl about his edit warring on Scientific opinion on climate change. Now he is joining in with complete newcomer Poznan in what looks like an incipient edit war on The Hockey Stick Illusion. For new editors this is especially fraught activity in a topic area that has so recently been a battlefield. I suggest that an uninvolved admin might notify them of the discretionary sanctions and ask them to use the talk page more. --TS 21:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither one appears to hit "edit war" status from this vantage point. Perhaps seeing two new people in the area intrinically evokes "they must be up to something" type gut reactions? And they do not appear to be avoiding talk pages - perhaps AGF has been neglected in that area a bit too much. Collect (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Both accounts have very similar styles of writing. Both support the "negative bias" school of thought on the most recent dispute at The Hockey Stick Illusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with one supporting that "side" by reversion and the other by talk page argumentation. There is good cause to suspect that these are the same account, and I would recommend filing a suspected sockpuppet report in order to receive verification from users more experienced with sock puppetry or from a checkuser. (Sock puppetry is not, I am sure, a matter for AE, although if it is discovered that the sockmaster is a regular editor of the climate change topic, then it would then become one.) AGK 23:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
What you say has been rather obvious but may in principle be just an accident. In another contentious area I found that the most effective approach in such cases was to give suspicious new users quite a bit of rope and learn a bit more about them. Occasionally they become productive members of the community after a while, putting Wikipedia above their own bias. And sometimes they don't, and at the point when they are blocked after all we have enough behavioural information to deal with further incarnations reliably, efficiently, and without false positives.
The main problem with this approach is that every established editor has a de facto veto right, so that for it to break down it takes only one who panics because he thinks he is the only one who sees the problem, and that it's being ignored until after the deadline for interventions. Hans Adler 00:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we can all use this style of communication. I hope it's not too off-putting for genuine new users. At the same time it is a more or less subtle sign for established users that someone has noticed the potential problem and is assuming responsibility for monitoring it. Apparently it was too subtle to work without explanation, or maybe my ideas for dealing with such situations are too eccentric. Hans Adler 00:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm less worried about the possibility of socking. They're rather less aggressive than socks we've had in this area, and a little more communicative. However their editing is still rather more aggressive than our editing guidelines for the sanctions area, having both restored disputed material, and so I think it would be good to inform them and advise them on how to proceed without getting into edit wars (albeit rather minor ones) on the topic. --TS 09:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As another indicator of the potential problems going forward, see this edit which is blatantly incorrect. The cited source does not refer to alarmism at all. And in this edit a description is removed with the edit summary "could not find in reliable source" for a journalist's retired status although in fact the writer himself in the cited source says he retired in 2000. They really do need to discuss things more. These mistakes indicate a boldness that is inappropriate in view of their failure to check for basic errors. --TS 09:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The quality of Rendahl's editing seems to be improving since we engaged with them on their talk page. Of the last four edits, one removed a potentially problematic description from an environmental organisation (seems to originate from the organisation's website; the fact that many books uncritically reprint that shouldn't give more weight to it; we would need an intellectually independent source). Another removed what does in fact appear to be original research. (I tried to verify it but only found several competing explanations in reliable sources.) Let's not do anything that could keep the user from continuing to learn at this pace. A lot of users first come here with the expectation that Wikipedia is a disorganised heap of crap and quality editing is wasted. Some become valuable members of the community once they have understood how things really work. Hans Adler 11:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I have notified Rendahl and Poznan of the discretionary sanctions, and invited them to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --TS 19:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Another one, this guy Squiddy has reverted three times today at The Hockey Stick Illusion [117] [118] [119]. I've warned him about edit warring and the probation, but official notification might be good. --TS 21:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the accounts, Rendahl, has now been checked and found to be a sock. It is blocked. This does not reflect on the other editors, who I don't doubt are editing in good faith. --TS 11:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea who "rendahl" is, was or will be. I have a professional interest in the topic of climate change and was trying to improve some entries. Each attempt has been almost instantly changed (although in one case my change to another entry was eventually restored, in a rather lofty way). The article on the book "The Hockey Stick Illusion" is very poor - it reads like a rather childish attempt to denegrate the author of what is, in fact, rather a clever book, quite well written, informative and, given the complexity of the issues, containing remarkably few errors. Indeed, I can find only trivial technical errors. It ranks very high indeed, therefore, as a contribution to public understanding of science - my own field. My opinions are echoed by those of many others. I have plently else to do, however, and I am well aware life is short. I will go away. Poznan (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I've notified User:Squiddy of the discretionary sanctions, and logged his name at WP:ARBCC#Notifications, since he reverted one of the hot-button articles, Hockey Stick Illusion, three times in one day. If there are some words that simply have to be in the article to assure neutrality, in your opinion, opening an WP:RFC on the article talk page is the right thing to do. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Flower taster[edit]

various socks blocked; no active request for enforcement here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The user posts WP:COPYVIO attack material (see e.g. [120], [121]), and this series of edits makes it fairly plain that they are a sock of blocked User:Jones.liam. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I blocked them as vandalism-only and locked JL's talkpage. I am not familiar with this user - is it worth an SPI? - 2/0 (cont.) 16:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
If we get similar socks in the next few days it may be worth filing a SPI so that the checkusers can work up a log that may be useful going forward. I don't like to think of these chaps going rogue and wasting their time socking forever, but it's a dismayingly common hobby. --TS 14:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

More socks did turn up. See this discussion of three other probable socks that were active between 15th and 19th. If more show up with the same pattern over the next few weeks I'll open a long term abuse case. --TS 11:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And another. --TS 11:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit war at No Pressure (film)[edit]

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

Thanks to those who intervened on the talk page. The squabbling over how to describe the source ended amicably when somebody pointed out that the source was a blog being used in the absence of a pressing need to source from blogs. --TS 11:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


This falls under the climate change sanctions (they're specially written for the case so please do read the text).

There is an ongoing edit war here with all parties apparently blaming one another. I've put up what amounts to a "cease and desist" notice on the talk page but more eyes would be welcome. Possibly action needs to be taken at this point. Several editors are behaving abominably. --TS 13:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


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

User:Hammer of Habsburg reported by User:Taivo (Result: Blocked through WP:AN3 request)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed per a report at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: I'm not sure whether this belongs here or at WP:3RR so I have placed it in both places. Croatian language has been placed under the 1RR restrictions of WP:ARBMAC.

Page: Croatian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hammer of Habsburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [122]

Croatian language is under the 1RR restrictions of WP:ARBMAC

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [125]

Comments:

User:Hammer of Habsburg has now violated 1RR again after he was blocked here yesterday for the same thing. --Taivo (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Hammer of Habsburg was blocked by the WP:3RR request. This can be closed. --Taivo (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Topic banned editors needling one another[edit]

Closed; discussion continues at WP:AN#Topic banned editors needling one another
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This is not the only example, but it's typical of the way in which, for the past week or so since the end of the climate change arbitration case, topic-banned editors are still needling one another. I include Lar because although he is not topic banned but requested to stop using his admin bit in the area, there is an arbitration finding in the case (Finding 12.3) that Lar "has made inappropriate comments and actions and at times shows a battleground mentality, especially for an admin." In fact he has not edited in the topic but acted in the enforcement of the recently superseded probation. ATren and William M. Connolley have a long history of animosity toward one another, as do Lar and William M. Connolley.

The cited link above shows William M. Connolley extending a needling match from the Running commentary thread on the arbcom noticeboard to Lar's user talk page. Lar picks it up gladly, and ATren jumps in with his two penn'orth.

I wonder if it would be appropriate now to ask Lar and the topic banned editors ATren and William M. Connolley to observe a mutual interaction ban. They've had a week to get over it but seem not to have done so. --TS 14:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

WMC has animosity toward many folk. However, it assumes facts not in evidence to assert that others, even those he calls stupid and malicious, have animosity to him. I certainly have none. I merely don't appreciate his tactics, which he got multiple sanctions for. He continues baiting many folk, making snide comments, and so forth... as in the instance that TS refers to, WMC baits me about a reference that wasn't actually to him. When I clarify on the ArbCom page, TS seems to think that's a sign of.. what? Further WMC turns up to needle me further on my talk page, I again respond mildly. ATren appeared to comment on the WSJ ref... I don't see the needling here by ATren or me that TS does. What's needed here is a further interaction ban on WMC, but not necessarily on others. Restrict his needling and baiting. That cures the problem. ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
This ad hominem comment, directed at me at WT:ADMIN, a discussion to which I was specifically invited by Roger Davies, is similarly gratuitous and unhelpful. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Eh? That you've got a hobby horse? Did you want the diffs demonstrating it? You take swipes at me every chance you get. In fact, here you are now. QED. You strain at gnats and pass camels. As has been pointed out to you before. You're part of the problem with your enabling behavior. ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The entire message thread can be reviewed here[126]. I think that this particular jibe is consequential because it is not part of a "needling match." I was commenting on administrative policy. Lar's name wasn't mentioned, and he wasn't even participating in that message thread until I commented (as suggested on my talk page by Roger Davies). Then Lar dived right in with his attacking "hobby horse" comment, which served no purpose at all but is consistent with the battleground behavior noted in the arbcom decision. I advocated that Lar be separated from CC enforcement during the PD discussion, which indeed happened, and that resulted in the antagonism that you see displayed in his comment above, and also motivating his "hobby horse" comment. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Re the topic starter: I disagree with TS that WMC and Lar were engaged in a "needling match." WMC politely asked that Lar refactor a personal attack. He responded by needling him about the Wall Street Journal editorial.ScottyBerg (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I have difficulty seeing how a WP:MYOB restriction on interaction between WMC and Lar would harm the project. Their unchecked mutual animosity helps no one. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
While the editors involved appear to have problems with civil communication with each other, I'm not sure that an AE enforcement is the right thing. Maybe if TS specifically layed out a case for enforcement (as the instructions request) it might be clearer. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the editors keep these sorts of discussions confined to the the appropriate forum. Count Iblis (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The cited link above shows William M. Connolley extending a needling match - wrong. Lar called me a prat; I aske him to retract the PA. I considered contacting an admin, but reflected that the advice in general has been that one should in general contact the offending party to request redress first. Is taht advice now retracted? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Lar: Are you persisting with interactions with editors of the climate change subject area, or have you withdrawn completely from activity in that area? If you have not, why not? AGK 19:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add this to this discussion. I commented at Tony Sidaway's talk page not expecting my comment to be anything more than my opinion of what was being discussed. Lar came to the discussion accusing me of being bias about WMC and him, an accusation I feel is hurtful to make. His whole comment to me is rude. Lar is an administrator that I used to go to for lots of different things. I don't know why he wrote to me like he did but I don't think he, as an administrator, should be talking to people like this. I think that this should be stopped. I don't want any problems with Lar, but lately he's been commenting after I make comments trying to put me in a bad light and it's not right. I'm sorry but this behavior of his towards me is starting to make me nervous. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit war on 1RR article Climatic Research Unit email controversy[edit]

Not an enforcement request
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In the wake of my comment on a talk page deprecating a journalist's comment, an edit war has developed on this article between Viriditas, Dave souza and two IPs. It has been under 1RR since the days of the probation. The Committee indicated that all remedies under the probation should be kept in place, so it still applies and there is a notice about it on the talk page. --TS 14:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that 98.234.114.225 (talk · contribs) and Dave souza (talk · contribs) breached 1RR; the IP has made at least 3 reverts and appears to be the instigator. Dave souza blocked 12h, IP blocked 48h. T. Canens (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Misread one of the diffs. Looks like Dave did not violate 1RR after all. (While technically a revert, I don't think it's appropriate to consider the first text removal one, since the text has been there for a while.) T. Canens (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still learning this stuff. I'll provide a much clearer analysis if I have to do this kind of thing again. Fortunately no lasting harm was done thanks to the blocking admin's prompt action in unblocking. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Africangenesis[edit]

Editor notified of CC remedies and promises to edit in accordance with them
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Africangenesis[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
TS 22:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Africangenesis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change#Climate change: discretionary sanctions Admins please read special provisions for this case
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 12:24 October 19 The clique that had controlled this article drove me and many other good editors away. I read at wattsupwiththat that this problem might have been rectified. I hope you aren't continuing the problem." Battleground behavior: raking up ancient alleged misdeeds during discussion of article improvement.
  2. 12:43 October 19 "Recall that I was the one that forced the cadre to admit..." Battleground behavior: raking up ancient alleged misdeeds during discussion of article improvement.
  3. 23:53 October 19 "So this is the tactic." Battleground behavior: failure to assume good faith
  4. 0:05 October 20 "So convincing you is the standard. WP:OWN". Failure to assume good faith, personal attack.
  5. 10:14 October 20 'In the past, wasn't ownership of this more prominent article partially maintained by insisting that details relevant to disputes and credibility of the scientific claims on this page, be pushed off to other specialized, less prominent pages, i.e., isn't disputing edits on this page on such a basis, "battleground behavior"?' Battleground behavior: raking up ancient alleged misdeeds during discussion of article improvement. Failure to assume good faith.
  6. 11:04 October 20 "Also, in the time of the great ownership problem, one of the few consolations was that visitors could get a much better sense of the state of the science on the talk page than in the article proper. Because the discussions and ownership behavior on the talk page were often embarrassing to the owners, another frequent battleground behavior by the owners was more rapid archiving of the talk page. Since your sympathies were with the owners positions, if not their behavior, you may not have been sensitive to some of these tactics. You see, despite that fact that the talk pages were a battleground, that doesn't mean that they were devoid of information or that the battles themselves didn't inform visitors of how credible the page itself was. However, I doubt you were aware that increasing the speed of archiving was battleground behavior. It is less excusable now with wider availability of broadband than it was then. Hopefully, we can get more of the actual science in the article and rapid archiving will some day, not be considered battleground behavior." Battleground behavior: raking up old alleged misdeeds, failure to assume good faith, personal attacks during discussion of article improvement.
  7. 20:21 October 21 "You accuse me of putting in an unsourced original research statement, when you didn't bother to read the sources, you don't assume good faith, you leave the article in an erroneous state and now you are stalking my every post as part of your edit war. Who is being uncivil?" Battleground behavior: failure to assume good faith, personal attack, while discussion of article improvement.
  1. 20:55 October 21 on being asked on his talk page to assume good faith: "I agree. I haven't received any indication that would work better, however. They don't admit they are wrong when you are polite or if you rub their faces in it. But, in the latter case, maybe they will read the article the next time." Battleground behavior. Displaying an antagonistic attitude.
  1. 21:54 October 21, edit summary: "reverting revert by Schulz who is not participating on the talk page, he didn't defend his ocean acidifcation revert and apparently not this one either" Battleground behavior: personal attack in edit summary. Stephan Schulz, who is the subject of the attack, pointed out caveats in the paper on October 19. Africangenesis apparently remembers Stephan from when he last edited Wikipedia before, in 2007 "I notice Schulz is still around".
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. 13:08, October 19 Warning by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) (TS)
  2. 0:04 October 20 Warning by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)
  3. 11:22 October 20 Warning by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)
  4. 20:28 October 21 Warning by Mann jess (talk · contribs)
  1. ...
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Formal "Warning of intended sanctions" (see remedy cited above), stating the battleground behavior is unacceptable and will lead to a topic ban from climate change articles if he continues in this way.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
At 11:47 October 20 I decided to step back from editing the article and leave the talk page alone. I wanted to see if this editor would interact well with others if I got out of his way. I also set the archive period back to 21 days following his expression of concern about archiving.
The antagonistic attitudes and personal attacks on talk pages have been characteristic of this topic area for some time and were the primary focus of the arbitration case which ended a week ago. This editor had left Wikipedia three years ago and has decided to return on hearing about the arbitration case. He has a good knowledge of the field and could be an asset.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.
  • Here. --TS 23:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Africangenesis[edit]

Statement by Africangenesis[edit]

Why am I being warned about disruptive edits, when none of these are edits? And why are only comments considered uncivil and not reverts that don't assume good faith, and when they don't hold up on the talk page aren't restored leaving the article in an obviously erroneous state. Or as in Schulz case just drive-by reverting without participating on the talk page. Careless reverts by people who don't read the edits or the sources in good faith. And then there are similarly careless characterizations without careful consideration. For example, TS essentially called me a liar above, when he state that Schulz participated on the talk page relevant to his reverts. Schulz did not respond on the chemistry. And the article where Schulz "pointed out caveats in the paper on October 19.", is not the article involved in either revert. The first revert was about ocean acidification where he only left the dismissive and erroneous chemist edit summary, and the second was about the erroneous article statement that solar forcing had a cooling effect, the article was the IPCC FAR report, not one that Schulz had any caveats on. (But I do.). This is the same Schulz as before, but evidently thinks if he drives-by only once a day, he can stay under the radar. And once again TS showed the lack of careful consideration and assmption of good faith typical of those that escaped the purge. I may have been uncivil, but I was careful to be correct and was pointedly correct when I did so. But I've had my say, and it is not in my nature to be uncivil, it took conscious and conscientious effort to convict these editors of their behavior, and I am naturally too lazy to continue the effort. But you need to know, that those remaining are just as guilty as those banned, they are just little more than an ill-informed mob without their leader. That is how it worked, they were so numerous they could run under your radar. The global warming article owes much to my participation in the past, in the face of fierce opposition and hypocritical double standards for evidence. If you look back you will see I was a model of polite persistence. I came back to see if things had changed, and they have some, what is left is an ill-informed mob that tends to embarrass themselves if they try to address the science. The can't sustain scientific arguments, so they are left with only a double standard application of wikipedia arguments.

But, as I say, I'm through with the incivility and any response in kind to their battleground tactics. I accept that sanctions are in force and will honor them. I actually hold myself to a higher standard. For instance, you won't see me reverting text just because it is unsourced, unless I have actual reason to believe that it is also incorrect, and I will stick around and discuss any issues or sources that are brought forward, giving the editor a fair hearing.--Africangenesis (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I am sympathetic to the Arbcom and Wikipedia's problems in attempting to achieve the same excellence on controversial topics that is so common on other articles. I like the wiki philosophy, and have devoted considerable thought to how it might be made to work on controversial articles with only minor tweaking of the rules. The problem isn't so much the battling, that can easily result in compromises where each gets their say and response. The problem is WP:OWN, in this case, by a near religious ideology with enough numbers. It has driven away a lot of good editors, many who like myself probably kept on contributing as IPs. You might be interested in a discussion I had with Tony at his blog during my disillusionment.[127]. This is just wikipedia, as a lover of science, what was sad and unforgivable was the climategate revelation that that scientists were playing the equivalent of WP:OWN for real, with the science itself. I look forward to seeing further advancement in the field of climate science and am excited about the opportunity represented by this period of unusually low solar activity to advance the science.--Africangenesis (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Africangenesis[edit]

He's still at it [128]. --TS 23:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

More incivility and problematic behavior:

More warnings on behavior:

Jesstalk|edits 23:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  • None of the above appear to have happened since the sanctions warning. Yes, the editing record is known. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Africangenesis is formally notified, and he has promised to abide by the sanctions, so that's it. --TS 00:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

These were before the most recent sanctions warning, but after the multiple he received earlier. In any case, so long as he's able to work constructively (as he's claimed above) then I'll leave it be. Thanks. Jesstalk|edits 01:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
If this quote (from African Genesis's own statement, above) isn't an example of battlefield behaviour, I don't know what is: "those remaining are just as guilty as those banned, they are just little more than an ill-informed mob without their leader". --Merlinme (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think if he can curb such expressions during article improvement discussions that will be a great improvement. We cannot do much about what a Wikipedian actually thinks, deep down, about his fellow editors. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I hope not to read such comments again on Talk pages, from Africangenesis or anyone else. I think we can all agree that they're not exactly conducive to lowering the temperature and encouraging calm consideration of how to improve Wikipedia's global warming articles. --Merlinme (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Africangenesis[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
User notified of the discretionary sanctions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Socking at Global climate model[edit]

socks blocked, page protected
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There's a very obvious "duck test" sock trying to shoe-horn his opinion into this article by edit warring.

And possibly:

--TS 21:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've taken the first step by semi-protecting the article for a week. I think an SPI request would be appropriate here. Looie496 (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marvin1292. Looie496 (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, this has been brought up twice (!) at SPI. The main case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stevehhll. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is me again. I filed cases in multiple venues without really flagging what I was up to. Between 2113 and 2144 I filed cases here, at WP:RFPP and at WP:SPI with no real coordination and not knowing that the Stevehhll case had already been filed by TenOfAllTrades. It's even worse than that--before actually doing anything I edit warred up to three reverts with that very aptly names sock puppet, "The great sluggo". Must. Not. Panic. So. Much.

Sorry everybody.

Thanks Looie for the prompt semi-protection of the page and the pro-active approach. We need to co-ordinate a bit more, that's all. All in all, not bad for a Friday evening when a young man's fancy turns to... oh TMI. --TS 22:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)