Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive71

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

Contents

Jo0doe[edit]

Result: Jo0doe blocked for 1 year
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 Jo0doe[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Faustian (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Jo0doe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Digwuren case Scrolling down you will see: *Jo0doe (talk · contribs) banned permanently from all pages relating to Holodomor, broadly construed. This is due to persistent vios of WP:TALK and WP:SOAPBOX. Moreschi (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Jo0doe (talk · contribs) blocked for a year. See [1]. Moreschi (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Per his block log, he was blocked again for 6 months not long after his one year ban expired: "14:05, 28 February 2010 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [2] See here for the full discussion. In this case he wrote ""At early days of it appearance People's Militia involved in the extermination of the soviet civil specialists which originated from East regions of the USSR." Jo0doe (talk) claimed that this info was on page 229 in the source. This is completely false. There is nothng about this on page 229. However, on page 232 in the same source, at the top ""first of all the duty was to defend the local population from attacks by the shattered and undisciplined remnants of the Red Army, they also killed organizers of Communist uprisings or Soviet parachutists caught behind the German lines, maintained order by confiscating weapons, registering former Communist officials and specialists that had been sent from the eastern regions of Ukraine, returned things that had been stolen from state warehouses and stores, defended important points, destroyed symbols of Soviet power and were involved in solving criminal cases. In line with brutal wartime policies, members of the People's Militia shot on site people caught looting, theft of personal or state property, hiding unregistered firearms or Soviet sevants, officers or diversionaries. Not rarely, there were also cases where the militamen took part in German anti-Jewish actions. It's known that militiamen took part in obligatory registration of the Jewish population, making sure that Jews wore identification with the star of David and that they worked without getting paid at community jobs." He changed the words "registered former Communist officials and specialists that had been sent from the eastern regions of Ukraine" (on page 232) into "At early days of it appearance People's Militia involved in the extermination of the soviet civil specialists which originated from East regions of the USSR." Please see the link to the talk page for the link to the original source (which is online) and feel free to verify translation with googltranslate.
  2. [3] Same passage was misused. JD used the origianl source's statement "Not rarely, there were also cases where the militamen took part in German anti-Jewish actions. It's known that militiamen took part in obligatory registration of the Jewish population, making sure that Jews wore identification with the star of David and that they worked without getting paid at community jobs." to support the phrase: "Members of the Ukrainian People's Militia took part in round-ups of Jews for mass executions and participate in it, escorted Jews to their forced labour sites and create an early ghettos." As a source he used this: "Full discussion, including links to the original article that had been misued, and translations, are here: [4].
  3. [5] On an article's talk page. An author writes about how Ukrainian nationalist extremists had motivation to murder Polish profesors and describes these motivations. The author then states tht the Germans had better motivations to commit this crime and after that devotes pages to describing how the German Nazis, rather than Ukrainian nationalists, most likely did it. Yet in the talk page JD just translates the first part and proposes putting it into the article. He states about that source: "He conclude that the personnel of the Nachtigall_Battalion (the Ukrainian nationalists - Faustian comment) have all reason to murder them - becouse they are 1) Poles 2) Intelligentsia and as a last - they interract with regime. That's the full scholar text." No, it wasn't the full scholar text because the scholar, in the next sentence, wrote: "But even more reason for their elimination had the German spetshrupy that followed the orders of the chief Nazi security police and security services, SS Obergruppenfuhrer R. Heydrich on June 2 and July 1, 1941 which stressed the need to destroy the communist functionaries, the commissioners of Jewish officials, propagandists, and Polish intelihentsiyu7" see the talk page for details that include translations and a link to the article that was misused: [6]. Basically, JD tried to use the source to support claims that were the very opposite of what the source was actually describing.
  4. [7] Here he removed the information in an article about the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Ukrainian) about units of that division massacring hundreds of people. According to the source, at the time of those crimes the units were removed from the Division and placed under police command. This information is removed by JD. See the talk page here for translations, links, etc. In this case he seems to be pushing the idea that the division as a whole was responsible for war crimes and altering inconvenient information.
  5. [8] Thi example is a bit different fromthe pattern outliend above. Here we see him removing info which he doesn't like. This was removed: "John Paul Himka, a specialist in Ukrainian history during World War II, notes that although units such as the 201 Battalion were routinely used to fight partisans and kill Jews, no one has studied the specific activities of the 201st battalion from this perspective and this ought to be a subject for further study." It was referenced to : True and False Episodes from the Nachtigall Episode Op-Ed by John Paul Himka. Ironically he accused another editor of blanking in that case: [9].

The above exmples are merely a sample of the pattern he engages in on article edits and talk pages. Essentially JD's M.O. is to find obscure foreign language sources and then falsely describe what they say in order to push his POV. It's quite time-consuming to check his "facts" which is very disruptive to the project but also shields him from sanctions because not many people want to wade through everything.


Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
At least, a topic ban from areas involving 20th century conflicts and Ukraine to be added to his ban from articles involving the Holodomor. A full ban from wikipedia might not be necesaary, he seems to have been relatively harmless here: [10] (although who knows, I haven't tried to verify what he put in).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Basically, he seems to be pushing a pro-Soviet POV with respect to Ukraine, by his history not only on topics related to World War II but earlier related to Holodomor (he has a lifetime ban on that topic for just the sort of behavior he is enagaging in now). And he used dishonest means when pushing his POV, creating a battleground rather than a collaborative environment. Here he is trying to lure a previously topic-banned editor into his fight: [11]. This is a pattern he has engaged in persistently since coming to wikipedia and has been blocked for in the past. He is also prmananetly banned from Russian-language wikipedia for that sort of behvior: [12]. It doesn't seem that previous blocks here have worked, except to make him a little more subtle or careful to use sources not as easily accessible.

I note that in his response JD argues against his previous blocks. His refusal to acknowledge doing anything wrong in the past probably explains his ongoing problematic behavior now.

All of his attempted defences of the various points I made can be easily addressed, although doing so may make this request unwieldy. This is, incidentally, what happens on the article talk pages - a lengthy spiral of false, poorly written claims by JD whose debunking merely leads to more games and so on. Should I address his points or just leave them alone?

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
Here is the diff: [13].Faustian (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Jo0doe[edit]

Statement by Jo0doe[edit]

So It’s really sad to spend time on addressing the Proof by verbosity accusations. First of all – I admit in full the difficulties with plain English – but actually it’s not a big deal for prolific editors which are interested in precise quality of facts at the WP articles – see [14] [15] [16]. Even a case party [[17]] . While – actually I’ve applied for help in that area [18] – but, unfortunately there no response. A Second – about my 1 years long block – As you can see from this diff [19] – I’ve accused by proof by verbosity in using the source, which I , actually, never used for reference at any WP article it’s also related to site www.ukrstor.com labeled as “Russian Nationalist Web-sites” (actually simply online book repository about history of the Ukrainian Politic Movements). I prefer to use real library - http://www.nbuv.gov.ua. Moreover I’ve a target of the WP:EEML – and as far as I’ve heard – I’ve at their “black list” – while actually it’s a not a big deal right now. Now I address the Proof by verbosity accusations

  • Re 1. Based on the mistranslation and misrepresentation of the source text – specifically text “numerous” given as “not rare” and “[[From the summer 1941 reports of the UPM “At least known” given as “”It’s”. As it can bee seen from the suggested diff –[20] I‘ve cite several more sources which directly support source information about UPM activity against public servant – which by the war definition is not “military personnel” – but a civilians. Story about UPM activities against military personnel given in separate section (supported by primary source image). I can also add several more secondary scholar sources which suggest such activities of the UPM – like THE DESTRUCTION OF THE JEWS OF LWÓW, 1941-1944 at Roads to Extinction: Essays on the Holocaust. Contributors: Philip Friedman - author, Ada June Friedman - editor. Publisher: Jewish Publication Society of America. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 1980. or at chapter “Terror tactics at the OUN and UPA activities” appeared at book named “Political Terror and Terrorism in Ukraine XIX - XX centuries”: Historical Essays published Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in 2002 ISBN 777-02-3348-9 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: Invalid ISBN. – as also by primary sources – actual UPM reports – like [21]
  • re 2 Examples of mistranslations already noted above. In result cited source accused in claim which actually not suggested by it – e.i. limitation of activity only to “obligatory registration of the Jewish population, making sure that Jews wore identification with the star of David and that they worked without getting paid at community jobs”. As it can be seen from the initial version of the article [22] – sentence has a 5 sources cited – not only one as suggested at point 2. Also It can be added a dozens more – like for instance [23] p.37 - and even added by case party [24]. Also such activities proved by numerous primary sources - like this late examples [25] [26] copied by me for WP (texts from them widely used before at the Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
  • re 3. Another source mistranslation /misrepresentation – author write not about miracle “Ukrainian nationalist extremists” but about specific Stepan Bandera’s OUN instruction which ordered extermination of the Poles, Jews and Russians and their intelligentsia – pages 321-324. At page 363 Author again conclude (p.1.) that personnel of the Nachtigall_Battalion have all reason to murder Polish professors and Jewish Population of the Ukraine. (p.2) However due the unclear and self contradictory reports of the witnesses it’s can be conclude that the in shooting of the Polish professors and Jewish Population of the Ukraine take parts Ukrainians and Ukrianian- spoken Volksduetschers which serve at the Germans punishment authorities and, plausible, UPM members. (P. 3) … some individual members of the Nachtigall_Battalion can participate in murders – as an their own will or by the orders of the Germans or Bnadera’s OUN leadership “ . – So it’s clear there no evidence about “very opposite of what the source was actually describing’ - and almost precisely inline with text given [27]
  • re 4 – I’ve already address same and other allegations before [28] – But for convenience of the readers I’ll repeat it again – source text [[29]. does not contains words “alleged eyewitnesses” and “regiments had been separated from the Division” – instead 3rd at page 284 paragraph clearly identify witnesses as real and page 283 clearly indicate about units of the SS Galicia (Kampfgruppe Beyersdorff and 4 and 5 regiments of the Division – clarification by Andriy Bolyanovs`kyi , The Division "Galicia". It's History Lviv 2000. ISBN 966-02-1635-1) – and not call them as “separated” – as far as whole division itself was at the disposal of the Friedrich Wilhelm Krüger - Höhere SS und Polizei Führer in the General Government = German Police in ordinary understanding words – So texts which does not appeared at the sources cited above was clarified.
  • re.5 [30] – underline the Proof by verbosity accusations – it’s clear that the text which was allegedly claimed “as removed” – namely “John Paul Himka, a specialist in Ukrainian history during World War II, notes that although units such as the 201 Battalion were routinely used to fight partisans and kill Jews, no one has studied the specific activities of the 201st battalion from this perspective and this ought to be a subject for further study." – moved to be a first sentence of the “Belarus” section - [31]

As a summary – as I can prove above – all allegations “reliable” as “fact about like "I’ve removed Himka’s text” – as you can see from my edits before – I’v use real library (- http://www.nbuv.gov.ua) and real(paper) publications of the Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and other prominent Western scholar - which I can support by primary sources - historical documents - which I’ve uploaded to WP for educational proposes. Also I’ve obtain a permission to use scholar text [32] for WP educational proposes – I’ll sent proof of it to any requested admins. It’s really sad to note – that the specific editor prefer to produce a huge Proof by verbosity accusations and remove historical documents [33] [34] [35] instead of explain how it possible for organization appeared it 1929 use a logo which adopted in 1941 – [36] or suggest a requested page(s) [37] [38] [39]. So – It’s would be nice to see a an administrators decision about what actually “net positive for Wikipedia” – scholar texts [40] and images [41] of the historical documents – or hoaxes [42] [43] and misusing/mistranslation of the scholar texts (examples given above) - to clarify what actually “disruption” mean in the context of the WP editing. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Jo0doe[edit]

I just want to throw my hat in the ring in support of the measures Faustian is proposing. I've also had to deal with Jo0doe and his falsifying of information. Ultimately, you can go through his history and find that in every article he edits, he follows the same pattern of inserting false information with obscure, non-English sources that can't be tracked down (or if they can be, we usually verify hat he falsely used the information to push his POV) / he then tries to put us on a wild goose chase to prove him wrong. He just loves wasting other people's time. Here's an example 1, it just turns into a headache trying to read what he's saying. He tries to throw around PROVEIT and RS and will delete content unless you appease him, but his questions are so generic and reek of copy/paste that it seems he just wants to stir up as much trouble as possible and isn't genuinely interested in editing to make articles better - just push his POV and piss off anyone else involved.--Львівське (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I second the opinion that Jo0doe habitually falsifies his references, but I disagree that he simply "loves to waste our time". I have seen some expressions of his sentiments on ru-Wiki and outside Wikipedia, and these examples show extreme anti-Ukrainian bias.--Galassi (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by MyMoloboaccount[edit]

  • I believe that Jo0doe is well meaning and provides much needed info on Nazi collaboration in Ukraine. His problem is relative poor use of English. Some of the claims against him don't seem to hold up under closer scrutiny. I am against the block. Also I have to mention that people accusing Jo0doe of presenting false information on sources themselves have inserted info that was not found in source claimed to support such claims.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Jo0doe[edit]

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

I am inclined to impose a 1 year block, which is the maximum that the discretionary sanctions permit. This editor has already been blocked for most of the past two years, with little improvement to show for it. Given the weak English skills and difficulty getting facts straight, this editor cannot be seen as a net positive for Wikipedia. Looie496 (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I cannot read the source claimed to have been misrepresented, and therefore I cannot evaluate the factual basis for this request (the claimed misrepresentations are sufficiently subtle that I do not consider it appropriate to make a determination based on Google translate). However, assuming arguendo that the claims of misrepresenting sources are true, I am of the view that the user should be blocked indefinitely under administrators' general power to prevent disruption. Few things are more disruptive to encyclopedia building than abusing the good faith of other editors by misrepresenting sources, and the history of lengthy blocks here strongly suggests that anything short of an indef will not address the problem. The first year of the block can be taken as imposed under the authority of the discretionary sanctions, and subject to the usual restrictions on overturning. T. Canens (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
In my view we should be strict in following procedures here. Actions that go beyond ArbCom sanctions should be decided elsewhere, such as ANI. Looie496 (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Since when do we require an ANI discussion before indeffing disruptive users? It is one thing to say that we should not take up matters that are not related to an arbitration decision to start with (which I think no one disputes). But given that the subject matter here is related to an arbitration decision, I think it's best, by analogy to supplemental jurisdiction, to deal with the whole matter in the same place for the sake of efficiency and consistency. T. Canens (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I support the indefinite block proposed by T. Canens (one year under Arbcom discretionary sanctions, the rest of the block as a community sanction). Jo0doe seems to have some knowledge, but he is not diplomatic enough or articulate enough to make edits that others can understand or accept. Since the expiry of his last block on August 28 he's been going downhill, and making edits that others describe as falsifying the sources. He gives long and confusing defences of his edits. At this rate, the negative far exceeds the positive. His participation in what is already a difficult topic area just makes life harder for everyone else. SInce he has had a number of chances already, giving him yet another chance doesn't seem reasonable. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked Jo0doe for 1 year, which is the maximum that the discretionary sanctions allow. Administrators who feel that a longer block is necessary may alter the block parameters outside of this process, but should not describe the result as arbitration enforcement. Looie496 (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

CC: Uninvolved eye (and voice)[edit]

Yet another thread that is not an enforcement request
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi. Can someone obviously uninvolved take a look at the following edits (and edit summaries) by User: Lumidek and, if deemed appropriate, lend a calming voice to the situation?

  1. [44]
  2. [45]
  3. [46]
  4. [47]

Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason to believe a user can not delete material from his own UT page? (your third diff)? I had thought that such was a pretty much unalienable right on WP. Likely that one should be deleted from the complaint IMHO. Collect (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Read the edit summary of that one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Let me just mention that I was not involved in any arbitration ruling on Wikipedia, at least not in the last 3 years, so the comment above clearly doesn't belong to the page where people ask for enforcement of arbitration rulings. I realize that my problems don't belong here, either. But I would still be grateful if someone told me whether a user can ask for some protection against blackmailing by other users, e.g. in the situations described in the four links above. An answer on my talk page might be good. Thank you, Lumidek --Lumidek (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec)I have also read, for example, edit summaries from others from their UT pages. Recognise "do let me know if you manage to think)," "ultimately pointless," " fool," "PZ is a world-class asshat. That is all.)," "potty peer begone," "rv trolling" and so on? Again - yhe edit was proper, and the disingenuousness about complaining about the edit summary would make far more sense if you complained about other edit summaries from UT pages, really. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor more or less. Collect (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
For those not versed in Jewish religious sayings, the incomplete statement above means "You are not obliged to finish the task"; but the complete saying continues "but nor are you free to abstain from it" -- thus actually contradicting Collect's argument. The disgrace of it -- two Jews debating Pirkei Avot online on Shabat!RolandR (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Keith Briffa article has seen what appears to be the renewal of an attempt to add BLP-violating material (poorly sourced speculation) that was last there back in Spring and apparently pushed by the same parties who are now back to try again.

I've put a request for the article to be temporarily given full protection to stop this campaign in its tracks. There are not newcomers but editors who have tried to insert this stuff before. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Collect, please be arcse that edit summaries such as those you quote are emphatically not acceptable, and thic anybody abusing Wikipedia editing privileges in that way under the discretionary sanctions will come under scrutiny. The old "us versus them" mentality is dead. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Which was my point. Folks should not be blind to such summaries, nor should they only report ones that they do not agree with. And the "lo alecha" quote was precisely what I meant - If one wishes to work on a task, one should not shrink from it on the basis that they only see with one eye the task ahead. Clear? (Whilst I am not Jewish (though having Jewish relatives), an Orthodox synagogue president said I was born to study Talmud) Collect (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

On his user page Lumidek identifies himself as the celebrated theoretical physicist Luboš Motl. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Luboš hasn't changed much since this blogosphere analogue of an AN/I thread, take particular note of the comment by User:John Baez posted here. Count Iblis (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Everybody needs to stop creating sections here that are not specific enforcement requests. If you have any doubts, please read the instructions at the top of the page. If you file a request here, at a minimum you need to specify the remedy that is involved and how it applies to the current situation. This is not ANI. Looie496 (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read WP:BURO. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Lumidek[edit]

Editor has been warned about CC sanctions and warning has been logged
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Lumidek[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
TS 20:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Lumidek (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
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 11:26, 23 October 2010 violates Principle 8 (BLP) of the arbitration, which editors in the topic area are expected to follow. The restored text, initially added by the same editor in March [48] but removed shortly thereafter, contains highly speculative and damaging accusations about Briffa and his colleagues sourced from a blog and an opinion column in the Melbourne-based Herald Sun written by Andrew Bolt.
  1. 14:06, 23 October 2010 violates Principles 3 (User conduct), 6 (Casting aspersions), and 21 (Battlefield editing) which the instructions in the discretionary sanctions instruct all editors in the topic area to follow.
  1. 14:19, 23 October 2010 (in edit summary) violates Principles 3 (User conduct), 6 (Casting aspersions), and 21 (Battlefield editing) which the instructions in the discretionary sanctions instruct all editors in the topic area to follow.
  1. 14:53, 23 October 2010 violates Principles 3 (User conduct), 6 (Casting aspersions), and 21 (Battlefield editing) which the instructions in the discretionary sanctions instruct all editors in the topic area to follow.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Other than informal warnings about the discretionary sanctions and their applicability to his first edit today, Lumidek has received no prior warnings about the sanctions resulting from the recently concluded arbitration case.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
As Lumidek misinterprets informal warnings like this as "blackmail" and removal of his edits as "vandalism", a formal notification of the discretionary sanctions would help.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Lumidek's self-identification as the celebrated theoretical physicist Luboš Motl is confirmed by this posting on Motl's blog. I'm not a Scientologist, by the way, but I do look rather fetching in a kilt.
Lumidek has also made some other edits today in the field of theoretical physics, without controversy. If he's back on Wikipedia for good now, that's very welcome news.
Sandert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) today also restored the questionable content [49] with the inappropriate edit summary "Restoring a relevant section vandalized by Stephan Schulz". An examination of his contributions suggests that this user was created in March for the sole purpose of edit warring that material into the article Keith Briffa. A formal notification of the sanctions might be in order at the very least, for that editor.
On my request, the article has been protected for three days by Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [50]. --TS 21:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
here.

Discussion concerning Lumidek[edit]

Statement by Lumidek[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Lumidek[edit]

Result concerning Lumidek[edit]

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

Lumidek has been notified, and the notice has been logged. Looie496 (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob[edit]

User formally notified of ARBCC discretionary sanctions. No further action taken at this time. T. Canens (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Off2riorob[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Off2riorob (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
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [51] Knowingly inserts an unsourced claim into a BLP covered by the case.
  2. [52] Knowingly inserts an unsourced claim into a BLP covered by the case.
  3. [53] Inserts the same claim sourced to a blog/opinion piece
  4. [54] Inserts the same claim again.

This violates in particular Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change#Biographies_of_living_people and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change#Disruptive_editing.

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

Should really not be necessary, since the editor is well aware of the ArbCom case, having participated in the discussion and later discussed the outcome. However, a warning was added while I filled in this too-long form:

  1. [55] Warning by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Strong explanation of the inappropriateness of the action, formal warning.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
  • I'm fairly surprised at this behaviour. It has a distinct pointy smell to me.
  • The user has been blocked by User: TeaDrinker for a violation of WP:3RR while I filled in this too-long form. I think a formal warning will still be useful.
  • I'm a bit concerned about what seem to be recurrent problems.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[56]

Discussion concerning Off2riorob[edit]

Statement by Off2riorob[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Off2riorob[edit]

I was in the middle of filing an identical request on this sequence of events when User:Timotheus Canens warned Off2riorob and logged it with commendable efficiency [57]. Off2riorob has also been blocked for edit warring. --TS 22:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this one's done. Noting that Louie496 has warned the editor: "This is pretty disappointing, as it's clear that the motive for those edits was malicious. In my view, any repetition of this behavior is likely to get you either topic-banned from the CC domain or blocked for a substantial period of time." [58]. --TS 22:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Prior extensions of good faith given to Off2riorob
  • Off2riorob was twice given extensions of good faith, after he promised not to engage in disruptive editing again - and he has reneged on those comments, please see some brief history, below:
  1. 16 April 2009 - 72 hour block for disruption at WP:GA article was reduced to 48 hours, after Off2riorob agreed in the future to seek out dispute resolution instead of be disruptive [59].
  2. 29 September 2009 - Sanctioned with parole of 1RR per page per day for 5 weeks, instead of being given a "lengthy block". [60]
Prior comments by admin Chillum
Prior comments by admin Moreschi
Please examine this case with regard to prior extensions of good faith, and failure to abide by prior promises to stop engaging in disruptive editing. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a bit beyond the scope of the case. I mean, a more general remedy may be necessary and perhaps it's a matter the community can deal with. If not, there's arbitration. --TS 23:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Nod, and that may also be appropriate. Just think it is relevant to note prior extensions of good faith given to this user in question, and user's subsequent failure to change behavior patterns. -- Cirt (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, even if it doesn't weigh for a topic ban at this point it's something for the record, if he goes on and infringes again within the topic area. --TS 23:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Alright, sound reasoning. Agreed, -- Cirt (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie496 is perfectly correct about the warning requirement. No further sanction should be under consideration at this point. The editor is now in receipt of a warning--TS 23:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Off2riorob[edit]

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

Um, anything left to do here? T. Canens (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Editor has been warned, warning has been logged, and editor has been advised that any repetition of this behavior will have serious consequences. Looie496 (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Please see some prior history of failure to abide by extensions of good faith extended to the user, above. -- Cirt (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
This page should only be used for enforcement of ArbCom sanctions. The CC sanctions do not support blocking of editors who have not been formally notified. If there are other considerations that justify a longer block, it needs to be imposed without reference to this process. Looie496 (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good. Looks like in that case, all is done here, for now. ;) No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Vodomar[edit]

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


Request concerning Vodomar[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
kwami (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Vodomar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:ARBMAC (1RR in place)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [62] Revert to a version that has been reverted multiple times and is against the consensus of all non-Croat and several Croat editors
  2. [63] Weasel wording to the same effect, and not supported by the ref that it's now tagged with.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. User_talk:Vodomar#Notice_of_WP:ARBMAC Warning by Kubura (talk · contribs) (correction by Kubura: user:Taivo posted that warning, impersonating user Kubura [64])
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Revert of his latest edit, and warning/discipline as ARB feels appropriate [request withdrawn--editors now cooperating]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[65] (notification of this request and suggestion that he revert himself, which he has not done)

Discussion concerning Vodomar[edit]

Statement by Vodomar[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Vodomar[edit]

I concur with Kwami's assessment of the situation. Vodomar's second edit today was a WP:WEASELly way to insert the same unscientific POV into the text and does not match the clear statement of the sources that are provided as footnotes. Before I saw Kwami's report here, I warned Vodomar myself here that I considered him to be in violation of 1RR for that edit. Vodomar has stopped being a constructive participant in the discussion, has hitched his wagon to a single source that is not scientifically specialized, and has provided no references to the article. He is simply pushing his POV along with a tag team of others who provide no references and accept no references that don't agree with their POV. --Taivo (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps off-topic, but since the article's been protected, I thought I should mention it. A map which appears in the article was moved after the article was protected, and I updated the link in the article. This has nothing to do with the current dispute, but was done to stop a new edit war that had erupted over the map; the article now appears as it did when it was protected.

If you prefer, I can simply redirect from the original file name, and revert my minor edit to the Croatian language article, but that would require one of you to either protect the file or warn the other editor if you want the article to be stable. — kwami (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

1) Kwamikagami, heavily WP:INVOLVED on that topic, requires certain enforcement actions: sanctioning the opponent on the article. Is this a conflict of interest?
2) EdJohnston, you need to correct your message: in this moment, Wikipedia in Croatian language has 88,599 articles, Wikipedia in Serbian language has 134,823 articles, Wikipedia in "Serbo-Croatian" has 34,338 articles (many of them were copy-pasted from hr.wiki or from sr.wiki). Hr.wiki is vivid, it doesn't keep itself alive by copy-pasteing from other wikis. Kubura (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And what does the fact that bs/hr/sr/sh pedias regularly copy/paste entire articles from each other, oftentimes to the anger of the diligent contributors making the "original" article, tell us of the respective Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian/Serbo-Croatian languages, Kubura? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Vodomar is a Croatian diaspora (from Australia) nationalist that doesn't give a damn about the Serbo-Croatian language articles. Specifically, he hasn't made an edit to them before he was canvassed by his Croatian wikipedia clique to push their nationalist PoV (since the folks there don't write English very well). He doesn't know much lingustics and his only issue is how that article uses the term Croatian and Serbo-Croatian. In fact, in several discussions the arguments that he used appear to be randomly googled links that support just the opposite of what he was claiming in the first place! He and his "colleagues" are just wasting everybody's time there by repeating the same old political mantras that have been debunked dozens of times in the last 5 years on numerous venues. All of them should be topicbanned from all the Serbo-Croatian language articles due to their inherent bias and spread of disinfo and bigotry (which is not necessarily so from their personal perspective, but it is from NPOV perspective). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Vodomar is now cooperating to build consensus on the article and has not edited it since it came off protection. I withdraw my request for enforcement, since (besides it being stale) there no longer appears to be any need. — kwami (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Vodomar[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
I have full protected the article for 3 days. All the editors who edited in the past few days appear to have violated the 1RR restriction on the article and edit warred. They are on first inspection now all subject to the Arbmac discretionary sanctions:
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
I'm reviewing to ensure that they all had personal notifications under ARBMAC. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Notifications review of recent editors (NOT an about-to-sanction list, nor a verified-broke-1RR list, merely for inventory purposes of everyone with multiple edits on article in last 4 days)
Previously notified - Vodomar, JorisV, Hammer of Habsburg
Not previously formally notified - Roberta F., Taivo, Kwamikagami, PRODUCER, Ali Pasha
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Vodomar is the subject of this complaint, as the person who may have broken the 1RR restriction. He is also an admin on the Croatian Wikipedia. He writes English very well, and has been participating in a sensible discussion at Talk:Serbo-Croatian. I suggest that this enforcement request should be closed with an indefinite full protection of Serbo-Croatian, but with the hope that the editors will be able to work out a suitable compromise on the talk page. The linguistic facts don't seem to be in dispute (who can understand whom). It is a question of how the facts ought to be correctly summarized. The editors on the talk page will hopefully be able to solve this. For those who are new to this dispute, it may be interesting to know that we have a Croatian Wikipedia (34,309 articles), a Serbian Wikipedia (134,781 articles), and a Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia (88,575). It would be unfortunate to treat this as a war between the editors of two Wikipedias, so an attempt at negotiation is desirable. The other option is to go the way Arbcom itself went with ARBMAC2, but I don't think we've pursued the easier options yet. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

SonofSetanta[edit]

Blocked for 48 hours by Courcelles (talk · contribs); concerns regarding socking should be taken to WP:SPI.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning SonofSetanta[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
2 lines of K303 12:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
SonofSetanta (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. [66] Revert 1 at 11:58, 25 October 2010
  2. [67] Revert 2 at 12:45, 25 October 2010, less than an hour after the first never mind 24 hours.
  3. [68] Revert 3 at 12:50, 25 October 2010, still less than an hour after the first
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [69] Warning by Mo ainm (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Block
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
The editor is well aware of 1RR, having falsely accused me of breaching it prior to even being warned. I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to take a dim view of people who attempt to beat others with the 1RR stick, then completely ignore 1RR themselves on the same article! My atempts to improve the article, be they removal of unverifiable claims, original research, BLP violations, copyediting, removal of dead image (not the commented out one, there's a redlinked image) are all reverted. I will also be starting a sockpuppet report on this editor tomorrow after research, and I would suggest any action taken may need to be increased since this editor denies being a reincarnation of any previous editor, the one I am thinking of has been blocked many times for edit warring on the UDR article. Checkuser will be stale due to the age of the accounts, and behavioural evidence takes a while to assemble, otherwise I'd do it today. 2 lines of K303 12:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[70]

Discussion concerning SonofSetanta[edit]

Statement by SonofSetanta[edit]

I don't know why this is happening. All I want to do is improve the article and I've made it clear to the other participants how I want to be involved in discussion. I've made requests to other boards to try and verify that I'm doing things within the rules and am awaiting help from the British Military Task Force.

What concerns me most at the moment is that there seems to be three other participants, all who appear to have been involved in previous arguments, according to the archived discussions and these gentlemen/women don't seem to have the patience to let me feel my way around and get things right. They're posting warnings on my Talk Page and throwing all sorts of Wikipedia rules at me instead of talking me through procedural matters. I am feeling bullied and am getting the impression the others don't want me interfering with their private project.

If I'd known the best place to get help from the outset I would have requested it but Wikipedia seems like a very complicated place.

I've read up on Sockpuppets and I don't understand why this is being levelled at me either. Is there a way to prove I only have one membership of Wikipedia?

Can I not just edit the article in friendly company, getting advice on how to improve it from these people, instead of having them at my throat? The advertising on Wikpedia suggests it is friendly, so why am I feeling as if I'm being picked on? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading some of the things other people are posting about me. Truthfully - this is reading like a witch-hunt or kangaroo court. All I wanted to do was edit an article. I didn't want to get involved in arguments with others but it appears I have strayed onto somebody's private article. I put all my ideas on the noticeboard and asked for help from various different sources. When I found out the correct thing to do I posted my solutions on the noticeboard before changing the text on the item itself. The others haven't given me the same consideration, despite me asking for patience and help. I get my posts deleted without explanation. Ok so loads of Wikipedia reference manuals get posted but what was to stop One Night in Hackney telling me in advance with the text and letting me have a go at fixing it? It seems its ok for One Night in Hackney to just do whatever he/she wants but when I take a bold step after several days consideration and a lot of agonising then I have a complaint made against me.

On reflection it's looking as if someone like me who wants a little interest in life isn't really wanted on Wikipedia so if the powers that be want to delete my account then it's ok by me. It wouldn't be enjoyable continuing as a member if this is what happens when I try to be part of the site. But I'm not going to run away blubbing just yet. I'm going to wait and see if fair play exists here.

Who is it I'm supposed to be impersonating anyway? Not that it matters but it would be interesting to find out. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning SonofSetanta[edit]

Angus, assuming Hackney's suggestion of this being a reincarnation is correct I believe there's a violation of WP:Clean start, in particular "But if the old account came to community attention, or the topic is the subject of edit-wars and contentious editing, and especially if your old account was involved or your new account will be, then it may be seen as evading scrutiny not to disclose the old account". Hackney asked SonofSetanta directly if he had edited using any previous accounts, and it was denied. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning SonofSetanta[edit]

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

Would I be right in thinking that, hypothetically speaking, if this person's last block was edit-warring in this area had been for 48 hours, one week would be normal this time? Or, again hypothetically, if it had been one week, then two would be normal? If this is so, then how about, to save a great deal of faffing around, we come over all Solomonic and split the difference at a ten-day block? A cursory look at the most obvious candidates didn't lead me to conclude that there had been any overlap between this account and those, nor do there seem to be any active probations &c listed which would be relevant. In these circumstances, check-user might appear to be fishing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  • A block for ten days appears justified. If a sock case is opened and SonofSetanta is found to be related to previous accounts, then an admin could apply a further sanction without the need to return here. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm thinking much closer to 48 hours, with an open invitation to make it much, much longer if sockpuppetry is proven. Courcelles 17:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Per Courcelles, I think around 48 hours, unless sockpuppetry is proven in which case it could be a lot longer. PhilKnight (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I've blocked for 48 hours. If anyone can establish sockpuppetry, please extend this block or alter it however you see fit. However, as we have been presented with no conclusive evidence to that end, I've chosen to act on what is an obvious violation of the decision now, and let an SPI or other action- that may lead to harsher remedies- be perused in a calmer manner. Courcelles 20:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley[edit]

Marknutley (talk · contribs) blocked for 2 weeks. T. Canens (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Marknutley[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
TS 13:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
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 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change#Marknutley_topic-banned
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 12:39, 24 October 2010 Participates in community discussion arising from Off2riorob's BLP edit war on William Connolley, an article in the topic area, for which Off2riorob has been warned under the climate change discretionary sanctions.
  2. 12:47, 24 October 2010 Ditto
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. 18:00, 15 October 2010 Was informed of his topic ban by the arbitration clerk who closed the case.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Confirmation that he is to keep well away from the climate change articles, talk pages, and processes related to them, as the topic ban states.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
A discussion immediately prior to this filing is here.
See also arbitration committee comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FClimate_change (ongoing).
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
Notified 13:09, 24 October 2010.

Discussion concerning Marknutley[edit]

Statement by Marknutley[edit]

This is a piss take right? I comment on an editors proposed sanctions (sanctions which are being proposed from the editors entire editing history BTW) This has bugger all to do with CC and i demand this get thrown out and Tony get told not to file bullshit enforcement actions. mark (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Marknutley[edit]

Do topic bans prohibit editors from participating in editor-focused dispute resolution forums such as AN, ANI, RfAR, etc? Cla68 (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

To quote arbitrator Coren: "The point of the ruling is to get those editors to disengage. If they are unwilling or unable to do so, then we'll have no choice but to amend the decision to be more comprehensive and draconian for those editors." --TS 13:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec) In general, no. However, this ban prohibits "(1) from editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (2) from editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; and (3) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. " The particular dispute relates to edits of William Connolley; and, in fact, was commenting on a block related to a WP:3RR violation at that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talkcontribs) 13:24, 24 October 2010
Well, I hope the Committee clarifies this point, because I was sorely tempted to comment when Tony Sidaway made those bogus allegations against Atren a few days ago. Cla68 (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought the topic ban which barred editors from process discussions had an exception when the editor is the target of the discussion? I don't see it at the moment. If there is such an exception (and there should be), Atren was brought up by TS in the AN thread, so ought to be able to respond. However, Mark was not, so should not have contributed. However, why was it at ANI, rather than AE? A weak case could be made that if a sysop brings up an issue at AN rather than AE, that is evidence that it is not a CC issue. A weak argument but an argument.--SPhilbrickT 14:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see clarification regarding whether an editor named in a Wikipedia process are exempt form the rule prohibiting their involvement in the process. I note that William M. Connolley participated in the needling issue at AN, and that certainly should be allowed.--SPhilbrickT 14:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Please note that the specific incident that triggered this request involved a discussion of someone else's editing of a CC-related article, not a discussion of Mark's own editing. I think it would be perverse to say that an editor can't participate in a discussion of their own behavior (unless they are blocked, in which case they couldn't for technical reasons), but that isn't the situation at hand. --RL0919 (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the ban does seem to be applicable unless the Committee clarifies otherwise. The AN discussion was directly related to Off2riorob's editing of a CC-related article. I understand why Mark might want to interpret it differently, and given that this is the first discussion of this particular interpretation I don't think he should be further sanctioned in this instance, but my reading of the topic ban is that he shouldn't comment on this type of discussion at AN. --RL0919 (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any kind of exception would be appropriate at this stage, because the arbitrators are very clear that they want this bickering ended and attempts to stop it by invoking the topic ban should not (as indeed seems to be happening even here with the topic banned Cla68) be interpreted as invitations to do exactly what they've been told to stop doing. Enough is enough. Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to avoid confusion, I want to explicitly point out that Tasty monster is the account I use when I'm out and about with a telephone. --TS 20:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear that the ANI discussion is included because it concerns editing of CC articles. The question is whether mark nutley entered into the discussion thread because of a concern about the issues raised or did he want to influence the outcome based on whether the editor agreed or disagreed with his views on CC. TFD (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This complaint is not going to cool down CC conflicts - especially since it is exceedingly stretching them to go from commenting on CC (covered) to commenting on proposed bans not really directly related to CC conflicts - this extension would cover Nutley from commenting on Jimbo's talk page because someone there might have discussed CC :). Perhaps the cool-down time has arrived? I feel that this is simply picking at sores in the belief they will heal faster that way. Collect (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You've got it exactly the wrong way around. The way to stop the problem of people topic banned from climate change articles pushing the envelope is to come down hard on those who push the envelope. If you don't, they'll still be pushing it next month. Then what do you do?
Falsely claiming that this would ban Mark Nutley from commenting on Jimbo's user talk page if somebody else had discussed global warming does not help. Stop it.
The topic banned editors have been told to drop the stick and move away. Now we need to show them we mean it. --TS 21:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes but i dropped the stick about 6 weeks before the CC case even closed. And to comment on an ANI thread about a discussed sanction for an editor which was taking into account his entire editing history is not a breach of the CC probation. It was not just one article dispute which was being discussed was it? mark (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I did allow that at first. Notice that I said "you may have missed the context that the precipitating action was an edit war involving Off2riorob's repeated insertion of dodgy material at William Connolley, for which he has now received a very strong warning under the climate change discretionary sanctions." [71]
At that point to observe your topic ban you could have backed off. Did you? No. That's why we're here. You didn't back off and you now refuse to recognise that this is an instance when it would have been correct to back off. You said:
"I am not commenting on a CC article at all" [72]
That's a problem because you were clearly ignoring the process component of the ban.
I'm only asking for a statement that you, and everybody else under this topic ban (some of whom have been less cooperative than you) should back off. --TS 23:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Marknutley[edit]

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

I can't see any enforceable violation of the CC sanctions here. Looie496 (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  • It may or may not be a technical violation (that is somewhat unclear), but Mark should have known better. I'm sorry, but I really don't know how much clearer the message can be to the topic-banned users: Please go away. If the discussion is on-wiki and even tangentially related to climate change, and is not directly discussing you, then leave it alone. You lost those editing privileges in the case. Now its time to back off for a while and go edit something else. As far as a sanction for mark, I suggest we clarify that this is not acceptable, and we caution him to respect the rule-of-thumb I just outlined. The WordsmithCommunicate 08:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    • This is a cut-and-dry violation of the topic ban. A block- I'm thinking two weeks- should be the result of this kind of flagrant violation of a topic ban. Courcelles 16:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with Courcelles about a two-week block for violating the topic ban. It is fair to consider the article on William Connolley to be related to Climate Change. Wikipedia process about that article (even if the process is about sanctioning someone who has edited there recently) falls into the banned area. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmm, this is somewhat borderline, but I have to agree with Courcelles and EdJohnston here that there is a violation; I won't go as far as EdJohnston's wording suggests, but a Wikipedia process about sanctioning someone whose recent edits to a CC article triggered the said process is in my view properly considered to be within the scope of the ban, even if the CC edits are not the only thing considered in the said process. I also agree with the spirit of The Wordsmith's comment, though not his proposed sanction. T. Canens (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay then, what sanction would you prefer? The WordsmithCommunicate 02:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm thinking about a substantial block, along the lines of Courcelles/EdJohnston's proposal. T. Canens (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
          • I think I'll agree that that is an acceptable result. Do we have sufficient consensus to enact a two-week block? The WordsmithCommunicate 03:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Yes, we do. Blocked for two weeks. Courcelles 08:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1[edit]

Both the reporter and the reported user were blocked for violation of the interaction ban, Factomancer for 72 hours by Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) and Mbz1 for 24 hours by PhilKnight (talk · contribs). Courcelles 15:41, 26 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 Mbz1[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Factomancer (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Mbz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [73] Editing an article I just created and reverting my changes to the article by adding claims of chemical weapons which is specifically disallowed by the interaction ban. I was blocked for doing much less, making a single edit, at Maimonides Synagogue.
  2. [74] Ditto
  3. [75] Ditto
  4. [76] Ditto
  5. [77] Ditto
  6. [78] Ditto
  7. [79] Ditto
  8. [80] This edit violates the "commenting about other parties in other venues" clause of the interaction ban, since she was directly referring to my edits. Don't make the mistake that I did and assume that you need to use someone's name before the interaction ban kicks in - I have been blocked many times for not even using the other parties name but making any reference to them or their edits whatsoever. The interaction ban has been interpreted "broadly" by blocking admins to include any reference.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Not applicable, since user has been blocked for violating this interaction ban before.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Block. A long time would be appropriate given this account's block history.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
I have asked an admin who has blocked me multiple times under the interaction ban for violations much less severe than this, but he ignored my request (User:Georgewilliamherbert).

Most of my block history constitutes pubishments for "violations" of this interaction ban, most of the violations much more trivial than this, by admins Georgewilliamherbert and Sandstein. They have been loathe to apply the same exacting standards to the other parties of the interaction ban, which is why I have resorted here.

If this request does not result in a block, I will be forced to leave Wikipedia. Any time I start editing an article the other parties of the interaction ban can start edit warring against me and reverting my edits and I will be unable to discuss their edits with them or revert their edits without violating the interaction ban.

In this way the interaction ban is being used by some as a de-facto sub-rosa license to kick me off Wikipedia without the proper process of a community ban.

If I am to be kicked off Wikipedia, fine, but I expect due process, not this abuse of an interaction ban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
I cannot do this without violating the interaction ban myself. (Notified by another editor: [81])

Discussion concerning Mbz1[edit]

Statement by Mbz1[edit]

I hope I am allowed to respond here.

My interaction ban conditions as stated here are "This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly."

I did not violate any of those conditions. I did some work on the article, but I've never reverted anybody at all, not a single revert, not a partial revert, not .00000001 revert was done by me. I only added bran new, well bran new sourced information. as you could see here nothing was reverted only added. Besides adding some new info all other my edits were fixing my own mistakes, made in prior edits,fixing my English and/or moving my own additions from one place to another. It was "a mutual participation on articles" that is allowed under my ban restrictions. This edit is not a violation of my ban because I was discussing nobody.

The situation with Maimonides Synagogue was an absolutely different case. My own edits were reverted.

I have never at all violated my interaction ban. I have no difficulties in following my restrictions.


--Mbz1 (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Mbz1[edit]

Hmmmm... The diff 8 that PK uses as justification for a ban seems like fairly thin gruel. I mean, Mbz was just posting a notification, no? It wasn't even really a comment. Seems a little strict PK. On the other hand, I guess a single day ban is a fairly innocuous slap-on-the-hand. NickCT (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Facts recently made a final statement on their user page. Looks like the editor is leaving bu they have left before. Along with some other emotional stuff, "My contributions are far more numerous than those of the other parties of the interaction ban, whose material is of a poor, openly biased quality and whose English is much worse than mine."[82] Was part of it. This is also in violation of the interaction ban. Mbz1 can't and shouldn't respond to it (her images have been awesome on this project, BTW) but I thought it might be appropriate to impose an additional topic ban since there is a possibility Facts will return.Cptnono (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Should this be addressed before this is closed or should it just be chalked up to some general venting due to the block?Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Mbz1[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Complainant blocked, per the interaction ban. However, I think there may be merits to the claim, so I'm not summarily closing it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer that another administrator deal with the claim as written. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Arthur Rubin has blocked Factomancer 72 hours. Factomancer is restricted from 'filing reports on admin noticeboards.. about the other party.' Arthur has asked that we check if there is any merit in the complaint against Mbz1. Actually the editing at Operation Damocles appears very harmonious for an article under ARBPIA, except for a couple of hot-headed edit summaries by Factomancer. I did not notice Mbz1 making any reverts of material added by others. Factomancer seems to be complaining about the mere fact that Mbz1 is editing an article which he started. He is surely aware that the ban permits 'mutual participation on articles.' I urge that this report be closed with no further action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, I agree that ironically enough making this report is a violation of the ban which includes a complete prohibition on filing reports on admin noticeboards, and that 72 hours is a reasonable duration. However, I fail to see anything 'harminious', unless you're joking, and concur with Sandstein's comment. Finally, I think item 8 also infringes the ban, so I'm considering giving Mbz1 a short block. PhilKnight (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, I see how diff #8 could violate the restriction on "commenting in other venues about the other party," in this case Factomancer. So a short block of Mbz1 would be justified. 'Harmonious' could be too strong, but the article seemed to be improving in spite of the adversarial editing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I'll block Mbz1 for 24 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This request does not even belong here. The community ban was issued at ANI without any reference to ArbCom sanctions, as far as I can see, and the request does not reference an ArbCom sanction, so it should have been handled at ANI. Please read WT:RFARB#What belongs at AE for an explanation of why this is important. Looie496 (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm aware of that Looie, and I guess the other admins are as well. Personally, I think moving this request was unnecessary. PhilKnight (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It was necessary because it's now unclear whether the blocks that have been imposed are AE blocks, which cannot be reversed or substantially reduced, or ordinary blocks, which are subject to alteration in a variety of ways. Looie496 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The interaction ban probably could have been imposed under ARBPIA authority, but apparently wasn't. Okay, so this doesn't belong at AE technically. Neither blocks imposed were identified as an AE block. So this can be closed now. T. Canens (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SonofSetanta[edit]

Denied. The enforcement action was proper.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user 
SonofSetanta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction being appealed 
As above
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
[83]

Statement by SonofSetanta[edit]

I don't understand why I alone have been banned when it is obvious there was some sort of shennanigan going on with two users against one. I didn't think I was disrupting anything by asking people to have a discussion about the item. I would also appeal to Courcelles to look again at the article and note that a user called Domer48Fenian immediately went to the page and reverted the content again. I believe this is called "edit warring" That makes three users in the last 24 hours who have reverted what I've put in.

Can it also be explained to me if the Ulster Defence Regiment page is a private article or am I allowed to edit it?

Sorry if I've made mistakes doing this form. I don't really understand how to operate the template system.

All I wanted to do when joining was do some good. I thought by doing just a little on this article I could learn how to make changes and let Wikipedia benefit from my knowledge. I actually don't think I will edit Wikipedia again. There's no point because I've learned that my input will be deleted - why I have no idea. I've had a proper sickening by all of this but it would be nice to see my predicament acknowledged and to find an explanation as to why so many of the other members are against me and accusing me of being (or pretending to be) someone else.

Statement by Courcelles[edit]

  • I don't have much to say, the editor was informed of the 1RR restriction on Troubles articles five days ago, and the history clearly shows three reverts in just 68 minutes. The discussion that lead to this block is still on this page, further up. Courcelles 12:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by One Night In Hackney[edit]

Please reject this out of hand. The appeal is full of so many self-serving falsehoods and deliberate misrepresentations it can only be described as a tissue of lies.

  • "I don't understand why I alone have been banned when it is obvious there was some sort of shennanigan going on with two users against one" - wrong. There is revert one, which was reverted by me, then reverted by SonofSetanta. So it does not matter whether this subsequent revert is made by Mo ainm or not, SonofSetanta breached 1RR the second he reverted my edit, when it was not "two users against one". He has already been told by Mo ainm on the talk page this was not the case, but apparently "That's not how I saw it" (and I won't bother to address the false claims in the rest of that diff, otherwise my post here will turn into War and Peace), obviously he has trouble with facts......
  • "I didn't think I was disrupting anything by asking people to have a discussion about the item" - laughable. This refers to this diff. There were already sections for discussion at Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment#Information deleted without discussion. (last post in it by me on 22 October) and Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment#MOD reference used in the lead (posted by me on 22 October, first post by SonofSetanta at 14:25, 25 October 2010, *after* he had reverted the article three times. I took part in the new discussion he started too, this was ignored and he reverted anyway. As you can see, I and other editors are taking part in discussions or starting them, but these discussions are being ignored in favour of a "don't listen to them and start a new thread asking for discussion then revert" approach. SonofSetanta is not discussing, and certainly isn't listening.
  • "There's no point because I've learned that my input will be deleted" - that's funny, I have the exact same feeling! Let's take an in-depth look at two diffs that show the total changes I have attempted to make to the article shall we? I say "attempted" because SonofSetanta constantly reverts my improvements back to his preferred version...
  • Diff 1 (3 edits with no intermediate edits by others)
    • I removed an unsourced claim from the lead that SonofSetanta had just added.
    • I removed a needless "According to Major John Potter", something which SonofSetanta is supposedly in agreement with, so don't ask why I'm not allowed to make that change
    • I removed some unsourced information about "George Lapsley", this has previously been discussed at Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment/Archive 3#Non notable members in a roundabout way. The information on Lapsley isn't in the books by Ryder or Potter (which are the only two reliable sources you'd expect to find him in), apparently there's some mention of him in Gamble's book but from what I've seen it doesn't source what was in the article. The whole part about Lapsley is original research, unless a reliable source has said he is an example of the type of person that joined the UDR you can't just pluck him out of thin air and include him, as noted in the discussion section linked to.
    • I removed an inappropriate embedded HTML link to Wathgill.
    • I removed the "Irish Freedom Fighters" from a section dealing with (in that particular part of the section) alleged collusion with republicans. The source doesn't say they are republican and as I've said in my summary and on the talk page it can't be assumed due to their name as that exact name has been used by loyalists. As I've also explained on the talk page I didn't leave it in somewhere else as it's just a pointless "UDR member alleged his weapon was stolen" story that's redundant to existing text.
    • I changed "Loyalist" to "loyalist", since it is not a proper noun.
    • I removed "(no exact figure)", since that is only in there due to someone erroneously copying and pasting notes from a book I posted at Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment/Archive 2#For inclusion.
    • I removed "[[Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997|Ref]]" since that is not a reference.
    • I removed a section on sniper attacks, which was in a section tagged as original research over a year ago, a tag removed by SonofSetanta. The source does not mention the UDR once, thus making it original research. Echo Company by Ronnie Gamble is a self-published source and wholly unacceptable for claims about living people per policy, there's a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Reliable source about it, and various discussions in the UDR talk page archives.
    • The removal of [[File:Damaged Land Rover.jpg|thumb|left|A UDR Land Rover damaged in an IED attack]] was an error on my part, one fixed by Mo ainm
    • I removed redundant "Deleted image removed" code
    • I removed a link to a tripod hosted site

Where I deemed it necessary, I explained why I had done those things on the talk page.

  • Diff 2 (8 edits with no intermediate edits by others)
    • I removed a link from a quote, Royal Ulster Constabulary is still linked elsewhere in the article.
    • I moved "R.U.C." outside a quote and changed it to RUC while maintaining context, in order to maintain uniformity over the presentation of acronyms.
    • I changed "British Government" to "British government" since it is not a proper noun.
    • I added a {{who}} template after "Some politicans".
    • I removed what I believe to be an erroneous "the" before "Royal Assent".
    • I removed "the" from "the 18 February 1970", per the MOS.
    • I removed the names of the first two recruits, as I considered they added little value to the article.
    • I corrected a spelling mistake, "were" to "where".
    • I removed what I felt was a redundant "he says" as it followed on from the previous sentence.
    • I removed a tautalogy, "and remained" is redundant to "throughout the troubles".
    • I added a {{huh}} template, as I don't see how "preference for promotion and allocation of appointments was being given to Catholics" is "explained by the fact that the local Territorial Army company of Royal Irish Fusiliers had been disbanded in 1968 and the vast majority of its members had joined up en-masse". That makes no sense at all to me...
    • I removed a peacockesque "prominent" and reworded the sentence slightly.
    • I changed "Army" to "army" since the former is not a proper noun, unlike "British Army".
    • I removed redundant "Deleted image removed" code.
    • I removed "now" since that was the term applied at the time as well, "now" implies a change over time.
    • I changed "the province" to "Northern Ireland", to avoid slang usage (more than once).
    • I changed "Loyalist" to "loyalist" since the former is not a proper noun (more than once).
    • I removed a tautology, "widely" is redundant to "throughout its ranks".
    • I corrected a spelling mistake, "where" to "were" and changed the scare-quoted lost to simply read "allegedly lost".
    • I added the apparently missing word "groups" and a missing full stop.
    • I removed a needless link to "1 January"
    • I changed "*'''List''' - [[Attacks on the Ulster Defence Regiment]]<nowiki>" to <nowiki>"{{seealso|Attacks on the Ulster Defence Regiment}}" and moved it to the appropriate place.

Now I don't even see anything there that's particularly in need of discussion, anyone else? To me it all looks like non-controversial copyediting and tidying, with a couple of maintenance template additions.

Other than the removal of the tripod hosted site, every single change you see in those two diffs has been repeatedly reverted by SonofSetanta. His ownership of the article is breathtaking, making whatever changes he feels like then reverting any changes made by other people and demanding they take part in discussions.....discussions that he ignores completely!

He was aware of 1RR prior to being warned yet chose to make 3 reverts in less than an hour while ignoring open discussions. Without a commitment to refrain from edit warring in future I see no reason why this appeal should be successful, all I see is a lot of WP:NOTTHEM most of which isn't even true as I have shown. The only person responsible for SonofSetanta's current situation is SonofSetanta.

On a side-note, since I have had to spend valuable time explaining all this for this frivolous appeal, the sockpuppet report is slightly delayed. It will be finished by tomorrow. 2 lines of K303 12:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Domer48[edit]

One Night In Hackney has outlined the issue with the edits in their usual comprehensive manner, and leaves little more to add other than a simple endorsement. A cursory glance at the article talk page will quickly dispel the notion that they attempted to engage in any meaningful discussion. The advice offered was either ignored or rejected by this editor. They then moved the discussion from forum to forum in the mistaken belief they could drum up some support with a number of unfounded accusations, which can be viewed here,here, here, here and the latest here.

They were offered some advice here on their forum shopping, and despite this they then went to an additional two forums. I raised this issue with them here where I raised some questions to the validity of their comments but was rebuffed. Their sole contribution to date has been in my opinion one of creating needless drama, and feign ignorance, while at the same time knowledgeable enough to find forums/platforms to peddle their supposed victim hood. If as has been suggested, this is a sockpuppet of a disruptive editor, my tone will be more than justified.--Domer48'fenian' 17:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 3)[edit]

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

Result of the appeal by SonofSetanta[edit]

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

Appeal denied. The other editors who commented here are advised that the reply by Courcelles was clearly sufficient, and there is no purpose in wasting your time writing lengthy rebuttals to obviously hopeless cases. SonofSetanta is advised that arbitration remedies are enforced literally and rigorously. Arguing about whether they are good is useless; that question is not open. Looie496 (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

WeijiBaikeBianji[edit]

No action taken.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning WeijiBaikeBianji[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
WeijiBaikeBianji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Advocacy, Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Correct_use_of_sources, Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Editors_reminded_and_discretionary_sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [84] [85] [86] [87] WeijiBaikeBianji renames four articles in this topic area, replacing the direct connection to intelligence in the titles with an indirect one to IQ, without discussing this first. Less than an hour later, he suggests here that the Race and intelligence article be renamed to something similar "for parallelism with other subarticles of intelligence quotient" when the only reason this proposed name is parallel to the other articles is because he’d just unilaterally renamed them all. When I mention Fertility and intelligence (in this comment [88]) as one article that isn’t parallel to his proposed rename, he immediately renames that one also. [89]
  2. [90] WeijiBaikeBianji renames Race and genetics to "Genetics and the decline of race", again without any discussion. When this was subsequently discussed on the article talk page here, five editors (me, Muntuwandi, Victor Chmara, Moxy, and Dbachmann) agreed that the new title was inappropriate and/or non-neutral. Dbachmann, an administrator, referred to this move as "a rather crude example of pov-pushing by article title."
  3. [91] [92] [93] Three examples of WeijiBaikeBianji selectively removing external links from BLP articles (the third diff is him reinstating his edit when it was reverted, without first attempting to resolve this on the discussion page). Some of the links that he removed may have not belonged there, but the problem with these edits is that they removed all of the links to articles and pages describing these researchers positively, keeping only those which were critical of them. This involved keeping the links to negative articles about these living people that were just as irrelevant as the positive ones he’d removed. In both cases, a neutral editor (Maunus) subsequently removed the critical links that WeijiBaikeBianji had kept or added, agreeing with me that they weren’t relevant either: [94] [95]
  4. [96] [97] Two examples of WeijiBaikeBianji removing links to other Wikipedia articles because they weren’t consistent with changes he was intending to make to those articles in the future. This isn’t advocacy, but it’s article ownership:  other people’s edits to these articles should not be rejected only because they aren’t consistent with WeijiBaikeBianji’s plans.
  5. [98] [99] The first edit is an example of WeijiBaikeBianji removing content from an article based on what he apparently considers a misrepresentation of the one of its three sources, along with not being able to verify the other two sources. The wording that he replaced it with is non-neutral and puts the word "race" in scare quotes, even though this is not done in either the article title or any of the sources being cited. The second example is of him restoring content that someone else removed, which contained original research that was not supported by any of the sources being cited, and which also cited Wikipedia itself as a source. The issues with the material WeijiBaikeBianji reinstated were discussed here. I’m including these edits alongside one another because I think it’s important to compare WeijiBaikeBianji’s standards for material that supports his point of view with his standards for material that doesn't. If article content disagrees with his point of view, he’ll remove it based on very subtle sourcing issues or his inability to verify its sources, but if material supports his point of view, he’ll reinstate it when it’s removed by others even if it involves circular citations and obvious original research.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
None yet as far as I know, although multiple editors (including admins in some cases) have expressed concern about the neutrality of his edits on article talk pages. See the discussion about his rename of the Race and genetics article for an example. He's also previously reminded other editors that the articles are subject to discretionary sanctions (for example: [100]) so he’s obviously already aware of this.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
I’m posting about this here because I think these things need attention via the discretionary sanctions, so it probably should be up to admins to decide what course of action is appropriate. Since WeijiBaikeBianji has not yet been formally warned about his behavior, I’m not convinced that a block or topic ban is necessary yet, and I’d consider it an acceptable result if admins were to decide that a warning and/or probation is enough. WeijiBaikeBianji probably has the potential to contribute to these articles productively if he could learn to be less aggressive about advocating his point of view, and not keep engaging in article ownership behavior. But since he doesn’t seem to be learning this on his own, I think admins need to do something to help him learn it.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
I should point out that I’m currently topic banned from these articles, although not because of any misconduct on my part - it’s because of the close connection between my account and that of an editor who was topic banned as a result of the arbitration case. However, both the admin who topic banned me and one of the arbitrators have told me that even while I was topic banned, it would be acceptable for me to post about it here if I felt that there was editor behavior on these articles that needed attention via the discretionary sanctions. There are several other examples of behavior from WeijiBaikeBianji that I think demonstrate advocacy and article ownership, but I’ve only provided a sampling of the behavior from him that I think makes this clearest. Since what matters here is the general behavior rather than the specific examples, it’s important that this thread not get sidetracked by discussing individual content issues. When advocacy is the one of behavioral problems being discussed, it becomes necessary to provide examples of the editor in question inserting or reinstating non-neutral content, but the discussion still needs to be about the editor behavior rather than the content itself.
Update 10/23:
Ok, now that the admin who topic banned me has stated that his topic ban does not extend to preventing me from posting here, I hope we can discuss the merits of this thread itself. I was initially reluctant to contact the other people who’ve been involved in this dispute because I was afraid someone would claim doing this was canvassing, but now that WeijiBaikeBianji is complaining about the fact that I haven’t done so, I’ve gone ahead with it.
Additionally, I should point out that while it was somewhat understandable for the admins who initially commented here to be unfamiliar with this situation and to not realize that my topic ban allowed for this thread, Weiji is familiar with me and with the situation. Since his comment points out that some of the discussion has been taking place in the user talk of these admins, which is where I was attempting to explain this to them, he’s obviously seen my explanation of being given permission to post this thread and there’s no way he could be unaware of this. It seems very disingenuous to me that he would be expressing blanket agreement with the uninformed opinion that this thread should be disregarded because I'm topic banned, despite knowing full well that my topic ban was not intended to prevent this.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[101]

Discussion concerning WeijiBaikeBianji[edit]

Statement by WeijiBaikeBianji[edit]

I thank Ferahgo the Assassin for her timely notification of this request for enforcement on my user talk page. I agree with uninvolved editors Looie496, Angus McLellan, and T. Canens in their analysis of and recommended disposition for this request. I note for the record that the request for enforcement was not accompanied by notice to any of the other involved editors, whether or not they were named or referred to without naming in the request. (I also note that some of the discussion of this request is occurring away from here, on the talk pages of some of the uninvolved editors who have responded.) I think all those uninvolved editors are Wikipedia community administrators and that they have said all that needs to be said about this request. On my part, I will go back to article content editing because I am here to build an encyclopedia and have plenty of volunteer work to do without being bogged down in pettifogging.

Thank you to everyone for your time and effort in commenting here. Your comments are helpful to me for better understanding how to collaborate with other editors, whether new or experienced, in making sourced edits to article content on topics that continue to be controversial both on- and off-wiki. I have notified a few other editors who are familiar with the thread(s) named in the request for arbitration enforcement that this discussion is going on. One has already kindly told me by user talk page comment that he feels he hasn't observed enough of my editorial behavior to comment one way or the other. I am taking all comments here to heart. In all cases in which edits may be controversial or subject to more than one behavioral interpretation, we can all discuss with one another on the article talk pages (and my user talk page is always open for comments) how to understand one another. As before, all of you are especially welcome to recommend sources about human intelligence or about human biology for the shared source lists. Looking up sources is very enjoyable and a great way to improve Wikipedia articles. I'm happy to do source citation typing and verification so that all wikipedians can uphold core Wikipedia policies and build an encyclopedia together.
Suggested disposition: dismiss request for enforcement Taking note of the statements of several arbiters in a request for clarification attached to another ArbCom case (raising issues closely related to this request for enforcement), I will not comment further here in the interest of getting back to work building an encyclopedia. The editors who participated in the article edits or talk pages mentioned in this request have still not been exhaustively notified by the editor who made the request. But the editors who have replied here or on user talk pages, and the uninvolved editors who have commented directly on this request, seem to be in agreement that there is no editor conduct issue on my part that needs any administrator intervention. I was glad to hear the point of view of several editors who have newly appeared on Wikipedia since the ArbCom case decision, and I pledge to work collaboratively with any editor to improve article text all over Wikipedia. I am always open to calmly discussing improvements in article text with other editors. I especially like looking up sources and verifying sources and checking that sources are not fudged and ensuring that Wikipedia article text is edited according to Wikipedia sourcing guidelines. My friendly suggestion to uninvolved administrators looking on here, bearing in mind that ArbCom has already decided discretionary sanctions related to this case, is to look at the edits, keep in mind the comments of experienced editors (both involved and uninvolved) who have looked at the request and the related threads, and dismiss the request so that we can all get back to work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning WeijiBaikeBianji[edit]

  • Were I uninvolved - I probably am, but better to err on the side of caution - I'd endorse Looie's comment. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I was told specifically by an arbitrator that doing this is not a problem if I believed someone's editing behavior needs attention via the discretionary sanctions. [102] I was told this is only a problem if I file an excessive number of these, and this is my first (possibly only) one. Additionally, my topic ban specifically allows this, since I was told by the admin who topic banned me that this would be acceptable. [103] When I appealed my topic ban to him in his user talk, saying that whatever decision he makes should address the problems with the editing environment that are unrelated to me, he told me "You are still free to request sanction of those other editors at arbitration enforcement; at least then one decision or another will be made." -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I would also like people who think I’m doing something wrong by posting about this here to read this exchange. Not only was I given permission to post here by the admin who topic banned me, but I was given permission specifically in response to requesting admin attention for the same behavior I’m reporting here, including most of the same examples/diffs.
If I actually am doing something wrong by making this report, then there’s a serious problem here with contradictory messages from admins. Since I was given permission to post here about this exact thing, I don't see how anyone could have expected me to predict that posting about it would be regarded as abusing that permission. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I've only done minimal editing in this area, but I could not help notice that unilateral moves to a POV title like that performed by WeijiBaikeBianji "Genetics and the decline of race" (a month ago, and soon reverted) cannot be constructive. Mind you, I also disagree with the naming (and scope) of Lewontin's Fallacy; POV titles aren't helpful either way. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • WeijiBaikeBianji also supported the use of an extreme source, Steven Rose, in the lead of Heritability of IQ, [104]. Rose commits errors of omission, for instance failing to say that heritability may or may not depend on the environment; for some genes it does but for some it doesn't. His paper has only 3 citations, so it's hardly the mainstream view, but nevertheless WeijiBaikeBianji supports citing in verbatim in the lead of an article. (Based on his biased premises, which are cited in the Wikipedia article, Rose concludes in his paper that heritability is a useless measure for any purpose. The only English source that found worthwhile to cite Rose's paper so far, only used it to support this sentence: "Heritability calculations are often indirect and involve simplified models of genetic versus non-genetic contributors [to disease]". [105] By the way, a 2009 Nature paper [106] that is obviously at odds with Rose's conclusions somehow garnered 272 citations already. I wonder why...) Tijfo098 (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it can convincingly be shown by reliable sources that Steven Rose is more extreme or makes more errors than other of the scholars used to defend the high heritability estimates such as Rushton, Jensen and Lynn. In fact I think the inclusion of Rose as a source would be a good move towards bringing some balance into the use of sources in those articles.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm new to wiki as a whole, but I read the article concerning race and intelligence and found that one edited passages concerning Richard Lynn. The edit debated Lynn's work with sources that never directly mentioned Lynn. [107] and the discussion on the talk: [108]
I reverted the passage back to the way it was beforehand, but WeijiBaikeBianji reverted back to the synthesized, not properly sourced edit. He stated that it was okay, but he didn't even address that it wasn't synthesis of sources that never mentioned Lynn.
By reading more into it, the only reason I could see for this is if WeijiBaikeBianji felt this synthesized paragraph supported his own beliefs. I can't be sure of anything, it just doesn't add up for me to see why someone wouldn't acknowledge the clearly sloppy style of the passage I mentioned.-SightWatcher (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Mathsci

  • From what has been said by the three administrators that have commented above and below (Looie, Angus McLellan, and Timotheus Canens), the evidence presented does not show any need for enforcement (no edit warring, personal attacks, etc).
  • NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights) is currently (temporarily and voluntarily since Oct 12 [109]) not an administrator so strictly speaking should probably have placed his comment outside the "uninvolved administrators" section below. His topic ban on Ferahgo the Assassin still stands, but he is temporarily not an administrator.
  • Ferhago the Assassin's most recent edits at the moment do not seem to be compatible with her topic ban. After getting the statements by the three uninvolved admimistrators—apparently not to her satisfaction—she canvassed a hand-picked set of editors of the articles from which she is topic-banned concerning this enforcement request. [110][111][112][113][114] Presumably Ferahgo the Assassin was aided in the selection by Captain Occam. Far from staying away from this topic, the pair of them have sought out loopholes and possible inconsistencies between statements of administrators in order to continue the WP:BATTLE that Captain Occam was fighting "tooth and nail" (to quote Shell Kinney) against his perceived opponents at the close of arbitration. This has been been going on for over two months. The topic ban of Ferahgo the Assasin was imposed on October 10th, when she made her request to submit here. She waited two weeks to submit. At that time two of the users she canvassed had not even made their first edits on wikipedia, one appearing on October 12th [115] and the other on October 17th [116]; a third is still the subject of a sock puppet investigation. Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin must be completely aware that this type of canvassing is disruptive—it looks like an attempt to "fix the jury"—and is a serious violation of their joint topic ban (per WP:SHARE), no matter what new excuses they present to justify themselves. Enough is enough: at this juncture one or both of them should now be subject to WP:ARBR&I#Enforcement. Mathsci (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Additional comments by Mathsci
Ferahgo the Assassin seems to have misunderstood what is entailed in topic bans, both for herself and others, She has been discussing directly in great detail the content of articles related to Race and intelligence, how they have been edited and who edits them. Common sense should have told her that that is exactly what her topic ban is to prevent her doing. Per WP:SHARE, the presumption now is also that these matters and indeed her general strategy here were decided jointly with Captain Occam, and that she is also speaking on his behalf. To suggest otherwise, after statements to this effect by multiple arbitrators, is unrealistic.
My topic ban applies only to articles and their talk pages, not to wikipedia processes. I do not discuss at all the content of articles, nor by whom or how they are edited. Ferahgo the Assassin on the other hand has been doing just that and in addition devoting her energies to lobbying multiple administrators. She has yet again suggested that the reason for this request—her wish for the subject of this request to be topic-banned—is to correct the "imbalance" resulting from the topic bans on editors like her and Captain Occam.[117]
So far every administrator approached by Ferahgo the Assassin has told her that this request was misjudged. The best advice that can be given now is simply to withdraw the request, as she may, without prejudice. Mathsci (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Mathsci, you are currently topic banned from race & intelligence issues and since this thread has nothing to do with you, you should not be posting here. I asked for and was granted permission to post this thread from both the admin who topic banned me and one of the arbitrators. As was pointed out by T. Canens and Angus McLellan, my discussing this here would be a violation of my topic ban if I had not been given this permission. Because you have been granted no such permission, your posting here primarily to voice accusations against me is both a violation of your topic ban and a clear disregard for NW's request that editors here comment on the content of the thread, not on the legitimacy of its posting.
As I stated above, I contacted the group of users who I did specifically in response to WeijiBaikeBianji’s complaint that I had not contacted any of the other users involved in the disputes I was posting about. If WBB had not expressed a preference that I do this, I would not have done so, and what I did was contact every user who was involved in these disputes - nothing more, and nothing less. Other than WeijiBaikeBianji himself, Victor Chmara was the main person involved in the dispute over WBB’s undiscussed renames in the first two examples I provided, Maunus was the main other person involved in the dispute over WBB’s selective removal of links from BLP articles in my third example, the fourth example involved one dispute between WBB and Woodsrock and another between him and Miradre, and the fifth involved one dispute between him and me and another between him and Sightwatcher. Those are the five people who I contacted. There are a lot of users I could have contacted who were only marginally involved in these disputes but who still would have most likely agreed with me, such as Dbachmann (who accused WBB of POV-pushing in response to his undiscussed rename of the Race and genetics article) and TrevelyanL85A2 (who agreed with SightWatcher that the material WBB reinstated in my fifth example was original research). But because both of them were not the main players in these disputes, I assumed that WeijiBaikeBianji’s preference that I contact the other involved editors did not extend to them also. The group of editors who I contacted is, as far as I know, exactly the group of editors whom WBB had a desire for me to contact.
Really, your near-constant assumption of bad faith - even about the specific effort I was making to comply with WBB’s wishes regarding this request - is a pretty good example of the behavior for which you were topic banned. I notice you’re also misrepresenting the opinions of the admins who’ve commented thus far. Contrary to your claim that they think that "the evidence presented does not show any need for enforcement", none of them have yet expressed an opinion at all about whether the evidence I’ve presented is actionable under the discretionary sanctions. The only thing they’ve commented on is whether I’m within my rights by posting this thread. But now that NW has pointed out that my topic ban allows me to post here, presumably they’ll at this point they’ll be making a decision about whether it’s worth taking action about the content of this thread, including the fact that you’ve gotten involved in it. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Muntuwandi

My understanding is that Arbitration proceedings are the last stop in dispute resolution. Arbitration requests are accepted when the other available forums for dispute resolution such as talk pages, user talk pages and noticeboards, have been exhausted. Looking at the evidence presented by Ferahgo, I see little evidence that normal discussions on talk pages have failed to resolve some of the concerns about a few of Weiji's edits. In fact many of the edits cited by Ferahgo are becoming stale. For example, according to the revision history of the Richard Lynn article, Weiji's last edit was on the 1st of October, more than three weeks ago. Talk:Richard Lynn has also been stale since about the same time. Ferahgo's evidence relies heavily on content issues, but I see very little evidence of specific conduct issues, such as violating the 3RR, engaging in low grade edit warring or disruptively editing against consensus. I haven't agreed with all of Weiji's edits, for example I didn't agree with moving the race and genetics article, but Weiji did explain his rationale stating that there is a Britannica article The decline of “race” in science. To summarize, I believe that Ferahgo the Assassin and or Captain Occam are once again trying to circumvent their topic ban by exploiting a loophole. Since filing topic ban requests is strictly speaking not within the scope of their topic ban, it would appear that they are using this request as a means of continuing their content battles. Weiji's is a relative newcomer to Wikipedia. Concerns about Weiji's edits should first be addressed on talk pages and only if these discussions fail, should these concerns be escalated to other places. At present their is little evidence that normal discussions have failed to resolve these issues. The real problem here is Captain Occam and his continued gamesmanship. At some stage a software restriction may be necessary to put an end to this endless drama Wapondaponda (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Additional comments by Muntuwandi I think there is too much wikilawyering. Captain Occam and Ferahgo are topic banned from race and intelligence matters broadly construed. Since they are subject to Arbcom remedies, it is reasonable and expected that they can file Arbcom requests, especially if an arbcom request concerns their remedies. Topic bans are enforced by the community, and what constitutes a topic is a subjective decision. The boundaries of a topic are also subjective. However the topic bans are broadly construed to prevent gaming. It is the spirit of the topic ban, not the "letter of the law" that is important. In this case, Ferahgo and or Captain Occam have filed a request that does not have much in terms of specific conduct or procedural problems, but instead is filled with content jargon. In general it is appropriate for Occam and Ferahgo to file Arbcom requests, but it is inappropriate for Occam and Ferahgo to use this privilege as a means to get around their topic ban. I am concerned about Captain Occam/Ferahgo's pattern of canvassing, particularly because this strategy seems to work. It may be psychological, but whenever an editor asks another editor to comment on a matter, the comments tend to be favorable. Some editors avoid this tendency, which is commendable, but many don't. These are

There is a lot of canvassing going on, including trying to canvass Jimbo Wales. All but two of Ferahgo's user contributions are related to race and intelligence matters. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This is arbitration enforcement, not a request for arbitration. Look at the other requests on this page - when discretionary sanctions have been authorized on an article by an existing arbcom ruling, this is the place to bring editor behavior to admin attention when one thinks that’s needed. I have also been told by both several admins and one of the arbitrators that if there was editor behavior on these articles which needed admin attention, this was where I should bring it up.
Are you ever going to do more on these articles than try to drive away the editors who disagree with you? Since the end of the arbcom case, this has been the near-exclusive purpose of your participation here. You’re not even being subtle about it, with your explicit advocacy of software restrictions. I had hoped that you'd drop this attitude when you finally managed to get me topic banned, after more than a month of your involvement here being exclusively focused on me, but nope - during the two weeks after my topic ban, all but one of your contributions in this topic area have been devoted to getting rid of Miradre next. In the past two months, you’ve only made one content edit on any of these articles that wasn’t a revert, and that was directly in response to Maunus pressuring you about it. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The Britannica article (on race; there's no article with the title you claim, that's just a section in the race article) is written by anthropologist Audrey Smedley who adopts a Lewontian POV; Smedley cites Lewontin, but no other geneticists. See Lewontin's Fallacy for what other equally distinguished geneticists think. Smedley completely ignores, either willingly or by shear ignorance, any post-2000 developments in genetics. Articles like that is why Britannica is hopeless. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Noah Rosenberg's Genetic structure of human populations (Science, 2002) has over 1000 citations today. Rosenberg's paper was the proximate trigger of A.W.F. Edwards' position paper titled Lewontin's Fallacy. Something from Watson comes to my mind about "has-beens" writing the Britannica articles. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Even though I agree, let's not focus too much on content here. The relevant issue is whether these behaviors from Weiji are a problem from a conduct perspective. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Maunus

I do think that WeijiBaikeBianji has had some moments of bad judgment - but generally he is one of the editors that are willing to listen to all other editors and consider statements backed by sources. I don't think that this petition should be considered, especially not since the editor making it is not directly affected by WeijiBaikeBianji's behaviour as she currently is not allowed to edit in the area. If editors that actually are interacting with WeijiBaikeBianji agree with Ferahgo's judgement then they can and should start an RfC or arbitrartion enforcement case. Ferahgo doesn't need to act as protector of other editors' interests in the area that she is no longer editing - I am sure everyone there is capable of taking steps to resolve their own disputes with out help from previous participants.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As an editor who’s been involved in these articles recently, I agree that some of WeijiBaikeBianji’s behavior seems problematic and I would like it to receive some attention from admins. I might have tried to get admin attention for it myself, but I know little about how to deal with such matters, and didn't want to cause a fuss. I would have remained silent on it, but seeing as others who have been here longer are voicing opinions against him I thought I'd toss in my two cent.
Since this thread is about an issue I would have wanted to bring up if I’d known how to, I don’t think admins should discount it just because of who it was posted by. -SightWatcher (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
since my name has been mentioned, and since WBB asked my to comment, I will say this: I agree with Maunus' assessment of the situation. I certainly do not always agree with WBB, and sometimes their judgement may be off. But there is no doubt that this is a good faith editor who is trying to collaborate with other Wikipedians. There is no need for this bureaucratic attempt to clamp down on WBB. If WBB should be out of line at some point, it will be more than enough to get an admin to issue a warning or a short block, and I have no doubt that the user will be mature and considerate enough to react to such measures. This page here, otoh, is just an attempt to resolve content disputes by wikilawyering. --dab (𒁳) 07:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
A warning for WBB is all that I’m looking for here. I already stated in my initial report that I don’t think a topic ban is necessary, because I think he’s capable of contributing to these articles constructively if admins could point him in the right direction about it. It’s unfortunate that so many people here are reacting to this thread as though I were devoted to getting WBB topic banned, when I’ve already stated that isn’t my intention. If this thread could be closed with a warning for WBB and nothing else, I would be satisfied that it’s accomplished its purpose. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I think he has received enough feedback here already. I'm not sure what a formal warning would achieve. I've certainly seen more strong-headed editors who aren't sanctioned in any way. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I have to say after having told Ferhago that necessary reports were permitted, this is disappointing. This request focuses on content rather than any behavioral issues, which is clearly inappropriate both as a request and for someone who's topic banned. Additionally, canvassing isn't an appropriate way to handle these reports, and canvassing brand new accounts is remarkably suspicious. I hope that Ferhago takes everyone's advice here and stops watching the topic area. Shell babelfish 19:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC) P.S. I also found it interesting that Ferhago repeatedly asserts her right to make this report, but took other topic banned editors to task for pointing out the deficiencies. Shell babelfish 19:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Shell, I appreciate your input, but I have addressed all of these points already. The discretionary sanctions on these articles are intended to enforce NPOV policy, and when an editor is failing to observe this policy, it's necessary to provide examples of them doing so with diffs. When I asked permission to post this thread, these were the same concerns that I was referring to then. NW granted me permission to post an AE thread here [118] in response to my explanation of this, which included a link to where Captain Occam described this behavior in the amendment thread, [119] including most of the same examples and diffs covered my report.
I also explained that my contacting other involved editors was in response to Weiji wanting that. I contacted all of the other editors who had been involved in these disputes, and no one else - I'm not sure what I should have done differently. This seems like a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" situation. When I had contacted none of the other editors involved in these disputes, WeijiBaikeBianji complained that I had not contacted them, but in doing just that I get accused of canvassing.
Lastly, I think that Mathsci's comment here is inappropriate for two obvious reasons. First, I asked permission to post here and was granted it; he did no such thing. I would consider it just as inappropriate if Occam had posted here in my defense. Second, Mathsci's comments here demonstrate the same behavior his topic ban is intended to prevent, which is his incivility and battleground attitude. NW has agreed that Mathsci's posting here is a problem. [120] -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've grossly misunderstood the Arbitration ruling; it was a matter of conduct, not content. I'm concerned that once again you indicate that this was based on information from Captain Occam - each time this happens, it looks more and more as if meatpuppetry is going to be a problem here. If you'll re-read my comment where I indicated that, as far as I know, editors aren't prohibited from making reports while topic banned, I also strongly suggested that you stop monitoring the topic area and work productively elsewhere. It's disappointing that you only heeded part of my comment.

About Mathsci, I find it hard to believe that you think the advice you were given by myself and NuclearWarfare somehow only applies to you. He made some very good points about your participation here - if you find that incivil and a "battleground attitude", I'd have to suggest again that you need to spend some time understanding how really Wikipedia works rather than continuing with the rather skewed interpretation you've learned from Captain Occam. Shell babelfish 23:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Various comments by Xxanthippe.

Sigh. I had hoped that this matter was over and done with. I have to agree that WeijiBaikeBianji has shown himself to be a biased and tendentious editor of the topic. I note that MathSci is also topic banned so I am surprised to find him editing here. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Comments by Vecrumba

Yes, there was some ruffling of feathers on some renaming, those have in the end already all been dealt with in good faith. There is no editor at the R&I and related articles who does not have an editorial POV informed by sources—as opposed to vapor-based personal opinion. I believe everyone is trying to put the recent conflict firmly in the past. The seemingly incessant stirring of the pot in the aftermath of the R&I arbitration has served only to breed new perceptions of bad faith. Really, either someone's editorial opinion is based on a fair and accurate representation of reputable sources, or not. The sooner we all get back to editing the sooner we'll be on the road again to improving content. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 15:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning WeijiBaikeBianji[edit]

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

I propose that this request be dismissed and the requesting party be prohibited from filing enforcement requests in this area. An editor who is topic-banned should not be filing enforcement requests unless there are clear and obvious violations, which is not the case here. Looie496 (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

  • When you are topic banned, you are banned from the topic, that is, you are banned from making any edit that has anything to do with the topic. This request has a lot to do with the topic. Therefore, it is within the scope of your topic ban. And, no, this is not "necessary and legitimate dispute resolution", because this request has nothing to do with your topic ban. Really, when you are banned, you should disengage and find something else to work with. T. Canens (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I would disagree with the rest of you, at least in the theoretical sense. Nothing in my topic ban was meant to stop Ferahgo from filing a topic ban request. Now, I don't think that it would be wise for her to do this, and in fact think that she should abandon the topic area altogether. But I think this request should be evaluated on its own merits and the idea of preventing her from filing AE reports should only be discussed if this becomes a persistent problem. NW (Talk) 19:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This is an odd sort of request. The way I see it, Ferahgo the Assassin is unhappy with the edits that WeijiBaikeBianji has been making in the various Race and intelligence related articles but, since Ferahgo the Assassin is topic banned from this area he/she cannot directly challenge these edits on the talk pages of those articles. However, the purpose of a topic ban is to ensure that the editor has no influence on the content of the article for the duration of the ban and it is a violation of that ban to attempt to influence the content of these articles in any way. Since each and every charge above is content related, it is both improper as well as a violation for Ferahgo the Assassin to raise the issue here. I propose that this request be dismissed; Ferahgo the Assassin be warned that a topic ban, broadly construed, means that he or she should focus on content in unrelated articles, returning to this set of articles only when the topic ban is formally ended; and be formally advised that continued attempts to influence content in these articles will lead to him/her being blocked. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This request does not reflect well on Ferahgo. Although Weiji's edits may raise some eyebrows, they do not rise to the level of an enforcement action here. Meanwhile Ferahgo is testing the edges of her topic ban. This is not a matter of 'necessary and legitimate dispute resolution.' She should wait till the ban expires until she resumes her efforts to influence article content in this topic area. If she wants an open-ended permission to file enforcement requests that do not concern her directly, she should open a request for clarification with Arbcom. The recent comments by individual arbitrators about WP:ARBCC suggest they now take a dim view of this kind of thing. Unless she files such a clarification, I agree with RegentsPark that the closer of this AE should formally advise Ferahgo that additional filings by her on admin noticeboards may lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The filing party was specifically permitted by Nuclear Warfare, the administrator who initially topic-banned him, to submit this request for arbitration, so I am confused as to why there are overly-harsh calls for him to be reminded or prohibited from filing AE requests relating to the subject area he is banned from. I would disagree very strongly with attempts to sanction or formally remind the filing party on the basis that he was (misguidedly or not) told it was permissible to submit this enforcement request.

    In my experience, requests for enforcement submitted by a not-uninvolved filing party are often derailed by conversation about whether the filing party ought to be sanctioned for submitting the AE complaint. It would be wrong to allow this thread to take that course, and we should now re-examine the merits of the actual complaint. If the filing party had done something that would warrant him being sanctioned, then a separate thread should be devoted to that issue; in my opinion, he has not, and so that would be unnecessary. But informal, off-the-record guidance on whether he should in future be filing AE requests relating to this particular topic area might be warranted; and that should be held on the filing party's talk page—not here. Respectfully, AGK 18:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

    • I agree that we can't sanction the user simply for the act of filing this request, given NW's explicit permission. I do, however, have serious reservations about whether the exception is a good idea in the first place, and I think it may be a good idea to remove that exception. T. Canens (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Let me add a pointer here to WP:RFAR#Request for clarification: WP:ARBR&I. Looie496 (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • In the Request for clarification that is linked above by Looie496, the responding arbs seem to be saying that topic banned editors may usually be allowed to file at AE, but depending on what they file, they might eventually be blocked for disruption. The definition of disruption is at the discretion of admins. If this is Ferahgo's first filing at AE, it is probable too soon to classify her posts as disruptive. I suggest that this enforcement request be closed with no action against either Ferahgo or WeijiBaikeBianji. If anyone would prefer that the close contain a warning to Ferahgo, please propose some language that could be used. If there are no objections, I'll close in a few hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    After reading the comments at the request for clarification, I concur with this. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Cla68[edit]

No action taken.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Cla68[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
TS 11:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Cla68 (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
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate_change#Cla68_topic-banned
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 12:56, 24 October 2010 Makes comment at Request for Clarification attacking another topic-banned editor. Continued battlefield conduct.
  2. 13:31, 24 October 2010 Comments at an arbitration enforcement request about another topic-banned editor. Introduces a grievance concerning an earlier discussion on climate change in which he was not an involved party. Continued battlefield conduct (see Finding 18, "Cla68's battlefield conduct".) Boundary-testing his topic ban.
  3. 05:12, 26 October 2010 Makes comment at Request for Clarification attacking the starter of the thread and excusing an earlier attack by saying "me and the others you mention were invited here by the filing party".
  4. 10:05, 26 October 2010 In reply to warning about continued involvement from Tony Sidaway (filer of this request), accuses that editor of "bad faith efforts to try to draw me back into the CC dispute so you can use it to criticize me...No one has caused more unnecessary drama since the CC case closed than you." Continued battlefield behavior and assumptions of bad faith.
  5. 10:12, 26 October 2010 Acknowledges arbitrator Carcharoth's advice but at same time accuses Tony Sidaway of "baiting" him. Continued battlefield behavior and assumptions of bad faith.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. 13:31, 24 October 2010 Informed of topic ban and discretionary sanctions by Dougweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), the arbitration clerk who closed the case.
  2. 00:25, 24 October 2010 Formal notification Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) of Request for Clarification following concerns about ongoing boundary-testing by topic-banned editors.
  3. 09:57, 26 October 2010 Warning on continued skirting of topic ban, from Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
"We really mean it" block if necessary for the enforcement of the topic ban.
Warning about continued assumptions of bad faith and other battlefield conduct.
Warning of discretionary sanctions.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
See arbitrators' comments at the Request for Clarification I filed on the continued boundary testing in the topic ban. Cla68 was one of about a dozen topic-banned editors affected by the Request for Clarification.
See also community sentiment expressed at WP:AN on a thread about continued battlefield conduct and skirting the topic ban.
I find Cla68's continued editing of his essay Wikipedia:Activist, which seems to amount to a psychological description of fellow topic-banned editor User:William M. Connolley, concerning, but that could just be me. During his recent involvement in the climate change topic area, Cla68 referred to a bruising encounter at Talk:Global warming during his early days as an editor, and I worry that he may have developed a personal obsession with him.
Filer, subject and many of the admins are in three different timezones throughout the globe so expect slow response times.
I've fixed the order of the diffs (not that I can see that it matters). I'd like to refer the uninvolved admins to Principle 6 of the arbitration, "Casting aspersions." This was an ongoing and very corrosive feature of the topic area prior to the arbitration.
ATren is also a topic-banned editor.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
11:04, 26 October 2010

Discussion concerning Cla68[edit]

Statement by Cla68[edit]

For some reason, Tony Sidaway put the diffs out of time order above. I'll leave it up to you to decide why he might do that. Did you also notice that he tries to say that my editing an essay is somehow tied to this? Anyway....

Besides this exchange on my talk page, I have honored my topic ban. I removed all the CC articles from my watchlist. Out of the blue, however, on 24 October, Tony Sidaway left this notification on my talk page. Notifications, as we know, are customarily open invitations for interested editors to observe and comment on a proposed action. Following up on the notification, I commented on the topic under discussion, the diff of which Tony has placed out of time order above. I understood at that time that dispute resolution about an arbcom decision is ok on arbcom case pages, even on topic banned editors because arbcom was the body which had imposed the sanction in the first place.

Soon after, Tony started an enforcement action on Marknutley, up above here. I was genuinely curious as to whether it was allowable for topic banned editors to participate in dispute resolution discussions involving other editors invoved with the CC articles. The reason I was curious, is because I had observed Tony make some false accusations against ATren in an WP:AN thread, and then had refused to withdraw the accusations when both ATren and WMC had told him he was badly mistaken. I wondered, in that case, if it was ok for other topic banned editors to get involved to try to make sure that the allegations were withdrawn. So, I asked for clarification, and amplified my reason in the diff that Tony Sidaway placed out of time order above.

After TenofAllTrades criticized me and others for participating in the thread, I pointed out to him that Tony had invited us to do so. Judging by Tony's comments above and on my talk page, Tony apparently took exception to this. In my response to Tony's criticism, I gave him some honest, forthright criticism in return, and offered to help him expand and improve any non-CC articles. I then replied to Carcharoth on the clarification page, admitting that I was having trouble taking his advice not to respond to Tony's provocations on my talk page.

So, none of my comments have been outside of the ArbCom pages, my own talk page, or Tony's page (I crossposted my response). Tony appears to be trying to escalate the dispute, for reasons I can only speculate at. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the only dispute that Tony has tried to escalate recently (see below and recent threads at AN). Perhaps a prohibition on both of us interacting with each other might be in order? I would gladly accept that, as all of this has taken me away from work I was busy doing on an article that me and another editor are trying to get ready for Featured Article nomination. Cla68 (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Cla68[edit]

I would like to make one comment here: I have not touched the CC topic area in months, nor have I initiated interaction with any editors with whom I've had conflict, yet TS has placed three notifications on my talk page in the last week [121][122][123]. Others have received similar notifications for issues not involving them, including Cla68. How are we supposed to detach when Tony keeps drawing us back in for no reason? The AE clarification was so vaguely worded by Tony that I honestly had no idea if I should respond. He also notified a dozen other editors of that vague request (see diffs here), most of whom are uninvolved.

Tony is the one stirring the pot here. He is overreacting to minor (or even non-existent) issues, drawing people like Cla68 and other back in. And now he is reporting Cla68 for responding! I am asking the admins/arbs involved in this enforcement to please remove Tony from what appears to be his self-appointed role as enforcer of these sanctions. This will be my last comment here. ATren (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I find the evidence of continuing battlefield conduct particularly strong, but if two uninvolved administrators assess this as a non-infringement and none is going to firmly support the claim of infringement I'll leave it there. --TS 12:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Cla68's comments cited by TS are not optimal, but I think that this request is premature. Parties to the decision need to be asked to desist before something like this is initiated, and also I feel that the decision itself was vague on "bordeerline" issues so that it doesn't seem fair to come down hammer and tong on this user. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

My observation is that TS seems interested in keeping the battle ground alive. I have no idea why. I think it would be easier for others to move on, if TS were not jumping on every comment to a notice board as a violation of the topic ban, regardless of the content or context of the comment. I think a warning to TS to be more circumspect in his enforcement attempts would be a better outcome of this filing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the "no quarter asked or given" approach is being applied to some editors (e.g., WMC and Marknutley) but not others (e.g., Cla68). So let's drop the high-minded language about "keeping the battle ground alive" and admit the blocks are basically arbitrary, eh? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

my comment is only regarding my observations of TS's actions. I have no additional comment on the other actions taken regarding the topic bans of folks from CC. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, but in my comment above I said that parties need to be forewarned before sanctions are taken. If notice is not necessary, and if the feeling is that one indeed must come down hammer and tong on topic banned editors engaged in misdeeds, then a block on Cla68 would be warranted. I'm not advocating that, as I think this overzealousness that we're seeing with WMC threatens to make Wikipedia into a laughingstock. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Cla68[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
I'm just not seeing any violation here. Cla68 was a named party in a request for clarification, a request he responded to. Maybe the responses weren't as civil as could be desired, but I'm not comfortable ruling this as a violation of the topic ban, since it was on an ArbCom page as a listed party to a request for clarification concerning the case that resulted in the editor's topic ban. Courcelles 12:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with this assessment by Courcelles (talk · contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm on the fence about this one. While we do need to send a strong message to parties to knock it off, I don't think the evidence above makes a strong case for applying sanctions. If somebody else presents more solid evidence I may be swayed, but for now I don't see the need to issue a block. The WordsmithCommunicate 12:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • ArbCom is perfectly able to maintain order on its own pages if it so desires. I don't see a need for us to intervene here. T. Canens (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with T. Canens; we don't need to take any action here. PhilKnight (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Although I believe that the diffs presented warrant sanctions, I also agree with the admins above that it is for the arbitration committee or its clerks to make that decision. CIreland (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare[edit]

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

Request concerning Brews ohare[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:16, 26 October 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 
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Motions (Motion 6). See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive70#Brews ohare, where Brews was admonished for similar violations, but was not blocked because the violation was deemed to be too old by the time discussion was closed.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [124] (Self evident, but see comment, which has more)
  2. [125] Oliver Heavyside, English engineer/physicist who did a lot work in the early days of electromagnetism
  3. See also the additional evidence by FizixFighter below.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Done when moving the thread to AN/I

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Indef block. This has gone long enough.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

When I saw Brews ohare edit Talk:Global warming (see [126]) I thought, oh crap not again, why doesn't he display some level of clue. I loaded up WP:AE, started filing the request, and then said "fuck it" I'm tired of being here every two weeks, and some will argue it's in the gray zone, etc. Then earlier today, Brews posted several times on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics (see [127], [128], [129], [130], [131]). So again I loaded up WP:AE and started filing a request. Then I thought "Do I really want another 4 weeks long wikilawyering mess about Brews not understanding the bounds of his ban, or that he wasn't "properly warned" or some other fine-print related argument. So I thought I'd defuse the whole thing instead by sending it to WP:ANI ([132], [133], [134]). After all, he reported a very subtle form of vandalism, so I thought a little IARing with regards to usual arbcom rules which mandates a total, complete and utter ban, no exceptions from the topic.

However Brews started talking about complaining content issues once again (see [135], gets warned [136], then wikilawyers about it [137]).

Brews just doesn't get it, and this time there is no possible "but I didn't know" or "but I thought this wasn't covered by the ban" or whatever "I didn't mean it that way" defense. If we give an inch per WP:AGF (like I just did), he'll take a mile (like he just did). I'm really fucking tired of this crap. Indef block him. Or alternatively block him for the rest of his ban. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit: And on top of that, he recently edited Oliver Heaviside ([138]), an article on a famous English physicist who did a lot of pioneering work in the early days of electromagnetism. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[139]

Discussion concerning Brews ohare[edit]

Statement by Brews ohare[edit]

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

There are a few other edits in recent days where Brews tested the limits of the topic ban. See [140] and [141]. In the first, the discussion at WP:NOR/N is a physics-related discussion - editors are talking about the Lorentz force and Maxwell equations and sources related to them. The second is arguably be the grey area since it is the biography article for Heaviside (and after an ec I see that Headbomb has also mentioned this edit). But the section in which Brews edited is almost exclusively about Heaviside's innovations in physics and electromagnetic theory. It appears like a case of the Camel's nose, where he was able to push up against the boundaries of his topic ban in these isolated instances far from the view of those aware of his ban, and then, since those edits didn't lead to any repercussion, he pushed further by editting on WP:PHYS. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


Brews clearly violated the topic ban and that will then lead to sanctions. That said, this doesn't mean that Beeblebrox's comments are appropriate. Brews made a few technical violations of the topic ban, but his edits weren't problematic in their own right. We should always WP:AGF as to the motivations of infractions, unless the edits themselves compel you to do otherwise. In this case the edits force you to conclude that Brews violated the topic ban, so no WP:AGF in this respect. However, Brews is very passionate about the subject and the force attracting him back to the topic has lead him to violate the topic ban in a formal way. Comments like: "...a repeat offender who spends all his time trying to find the edges of his various bans so he can sneak around them", are unnecessary, insulting, and have the potential of causing more problems in the future. Count Iblis (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

But they also happen to be 100% true. Just saying. 71.139.16.195 (talk) 04:31, 28 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.

Blocked for one week before I saw this report. I think the maximum block length is now 1 year under the enforcement provisions, so the next block will probably be at least 2 weeks. T. Canens (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? One week? For a repeat offender who spends all his time trying to find the edges of his various bans so he can sneak around them? The next block should be a severe escalation, not just two weeks. How long are we expected hold Brews' hand and pretend he isn't voluntarily breaking his topic ban again and again? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
"At least" is the keyword here... T. Canens (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Back again? Given his history, he's fresh off probation, owner of topic bans and appears to have no intention of changing. I started writing an Arbcom request to extend his probation another year but knew the uproar that would ensue and have been too busy with work. I would favor that action being taken. Dealing with Brews is seriously draining on anyone who gets involved. --WGFinley (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley[edit]

Blocked for two weeks.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WMC has filed an appeal, below. Please continue discussion of unblocking at that location. Archiving this is purely procedural, so we don't have discussion going in in multiple threads about the same thing. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
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.

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

Request concerning William M. Connolley[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
EngineerFromVega (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#William_M._Connolley_topic-banned
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [142] Encouraging others to meatpuppet on his behalf after getting a topic ban for climate change articles.
  2. [143] Creating a new section on talk page to bypass the Arbcom ruling and to advocate meatpuppetry.
  3. [144] One more.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [145] Warning by Coren (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  2. [146] Warning by EngineerFromVega (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Confirmation that he is to keep well away from the climate change area and to stop encouraging meatpuppetry using his talk page.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
[147] As per this edit by Awickert, it is evident that WMC is using his talk page to encourage others to edit climate change articles.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified on 26 October 2010 (UTC) [148]

Discussion concerning William M. Connolley[edit]

Statement by William M. Connolley[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley[edit]

Given that the filer has a grand total of 63 edits (at this time), I have a hard time seeing this as a good faith action. This impression is further reinforced by the fact that his "warning" was this morning, but the youngest listed diff was yesterday. And I can imagine no interpretation by which [149] can be considered "encouraging others to meatpuppet", nor do I see any evidence of meatpuppetry. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is WMC's reply [150]. EngineerFromVega (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Re Beeblebrox: Sorry, but you are wrong. "Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited (1) from editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (2) from editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; and (3) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles." Edits to ones own talk page are not forbidden. A number of Arbs have have suggested that it is better for all topic-banned editors to step away farther from the topic (and I tend to agree), but several have also pointed out that there is no actual violation in such edits. I'm also appalled by the hectic speed. MN at least got a chance to reply. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Both the committee and the community have made it abundantly clear that topic ban is to be interpreted very broadly and blocks are to be used liberally to enforce it. The spirit of the ban is being trampled on Mr. Connolley's talk page. There is no need to discuss with him first as he was a participant in the discussion at the ArbCom noticeboard in which numerous users, admins, and arbitrators made all of this clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
"Liberally" does not equal "arbitrarily". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Per my comment above re Cla68, I agree that a block of WMC is premature and excessive, as the issue of what constitutes improper conduct hasn't been determined as of yet. I see that a clarification request is proceeding on that point right now. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Clarification has been given again and again. The named users in the topic ban are to completely avoid touching anything even remotely related to CC. Period. Perhaps you missed the recent conversations at the ArbCom noticeboard and the WP:AE where this was clearly stated in those terms by dozens of people, including arbitrators. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been away for a few days, but all I see on the AE page currently is a request for enforcement against Cla68, and no interest in action being taken against him for actions at least as problematic as what WMC has done. There is also a request for clarification pending and not concluded. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
That's not what the topic ban says - it specifically lists articles, associated talk pages, bios and their talk pages and process pages. It does not list user talk pages. If that's what the ArbCom meant, they could have included it. They were asked about this point, so unless they missed the question, it wasn't an oversight. I think the ban should include user talk pages, but if it doesn't an editor should not be sanctioned for following the rules.--SPhilbrickT 20:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
MN was found to have violated the topic ban - he edited a Wikipedia process thread which related to CC. Tangentially enough that I think he deserved a little slack, but that's a different issue. WMC posted on his talk page, and the topic ban does not prohibit that. "Broadly construed" is not intended to mean it can cover areas not listed in the topic ban, it means no one can edit a weather article, then wikilawyer to say that weather is not climate. "Broadly construed" means the subject of climate is to be broadly construed.--SPhilbrickT 20:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, whose sockpuppet is User:EngineerFromVega? My Magic 8 Ball says "open proxy," but it would be interesting to know for certain. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

-of no one. EngineerFromVega (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This block is stupid, because William can still post on his talk page. Nothing would stop William posting some more links to CC articles. As things stand now, we still depend on William to notify us of Scibaby edits on some CC pages. That we can do without William doesn't mean that right now we don't need him. It may take a week or so before enough editors are there to check all the CC articles.

Per WP:IAR, William is morally obliged to ignore the fundamentalistic interpretation of the topic ban given by some here and post links to vandalized articles in a discrete way (like on his talk page). Sticking to the topic ban means that he does not revert the acts of vandalisms himself. Count Iblis (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Wrong, wrong wrong. Morally obliged? Do you guys see what we are up against now? The community has spoken, they want this dealt with harshly and they don't want any of this end-run bullshit. I don't know how anyone who has been following this could still honestly claim that they do not see the very clear consensus that all named parties are to completely avoid anything related to CC. Take it to a wider forum or back to ArbCom if you want, I think you will find that there is broad agreement that a hardline approach is warranted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
    Unless you're politically well-connected, like Cla68, in which you can continue lobbying for sanctions against other editors while the arbs and admins turn a blind eye. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Moo said the mob, or at least a small and noisy part of it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
If that is going to be the level of discourse here, I will simply state that I have no intention of reversing myself and move on to other matters. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Let's try to raise the level then. As Sphilbrick has pointed out, the topic ban has explicitly listed what kind of pages are off limit - user talk pages are not in that list. In the clarification discussion, Coren carefully distinguished between things editors must not do and things they should not do. All Arbs commenting later agree with this comment. If this distinction has to have any value, then the one that things that must not be done are sanctionable, while things that should not be done are not. You block is neither justified by the original decision nor by the clarification. The sentiment of the community or even ArbCom may well be that the topic ban should have been more encompassing, but fact is that it is not. So your block is unjustified. It's also not preventative (as it does not prevent William from suggesting things on his talk page), but purely punitive. And blocking an editor for an edit in which he points out a BLP violation is really a really really bad idea. As is blindly following suggestions by a likely sock. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
(e/c)Can you point me to where the Arbs concluded, despite the fact that the topic ban does not mention user talk pages, that talk pages are included? (There are far too many words on this subject, but I can't find that discussion.) I'm amazed that a two week block is being enacted, without a link to anything proscribing such behavior.--SPhilbrickT 21:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
While the letter of the ban does not specifically indicate user talkpages, the spirit of the ban is that all banned parties should completely back away from the topic area. It doesn't specifically list the Template: or Category: namespaces, either, but if one of the banned users started edit warring over a climate change template, they would be blocked without hesitation. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Coren specifically said "suggesting" edits is "without breaking the letter of the ruling", and that the ruling would have to be amended if that type of edit should be included. You can't block someone for an action specifically identified by an Arb as not covered. If someone wants to warn an editor and declare that while talk pages were not in the ban, they are now—I'd support a block for a subsequent violation. But not before such a warning.--SPhilbrickT 21:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If one carefully reads the comments on the Notification and Clarification pages, you see that the people who argue in favor of the "hardline approach", completely ignore the nature of the problems William was giving notifications too, in fact construing this as being engaged in the topic area in a problematic way, while in fact he was giving notifications of edits that needed to be reverted. He did that a day after the edits were made, so, it was likely it was not noted by anyone at all as a problematic edit.

I have to say that if I were running a website like Wikipedia and I were the only Admin, I would actually block the people who are dishonest and fight personal disputes instead of seriously contributing to Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I was preparing a request of this sort but somebody else beat me to it. None of the reasons given by William M. Connolley and his apologists here come close to excusing his refusal to disengage from the topic. I didn't start the request for clarification arbitrarily; it was primarily from observing his behavior and surmising that others (irrespective of faction) would see him getting away with it and be tempted to push the envelope. This tendency has to be nipped in the bud wherever it is spotted. Having said that I would prefer it if the wider community took the lead in filing enforcement reports. --TS 21:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Wordsmith's comment below. I am deeply ambivalent about classifying this block as falling within the "wide discretion allowed by the topic ban", when the letter of the ban (which the ArbCom deliberately and unusually chose to specifically scope in their findings) does not include user talk pages. Where administrators are allowed wide discretion is in the application of discretionary sanctions under a separate portion of the remedies. However, the discretionary sanctions require users to be engaged in disruptive or counterproductive behaviour not in the interests of the project (which WMC's edits do not seem to be), and that the user receive a clear warning before a block is applied under those sanctions.

What has happened here is that a well-meaning but overzealous administrators has msinterpreted and misapplied the case remedies in a draconian fashion, with the effect of punishing WMC for making an effort to respect the ArbCom's ruling while still contributing positively to the project in his area of expertise. As a further regrettable side effect, this block has rewarded WMC's opponents for stirring up this unnecessary conflict across multiple noticeboards in a way that is well beyond the spirit (and often letter) of their own restrictions. This is a very unfortunate precedent. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

WMC was well aware some time ago that the ban was going to be broadly interpreted and the penalties harsh. I and others told him and the other parties to expect this during the recent conversations at the arbcom noticeboard talk page. He is not supposed to be trying to contribute in his area of expertise. Period. I feel like a broken record here, ArbCom and the wider community have made their feelings clear enough, and WMC and others are choosing to try and find ways around the decision. It has got to stop, and it will be stopped. Again I suggest you ask ArbCom directly if you don't want to take my word for it. There is actually no need to ask the community as that has already been done and the answer was wide support for treating anything that approached the general area of CC harshly. If these opponents you speak of are also violating the ban, please report that here, I am not on anyone's side in this and I'm perfectly willing to block anyone else who is trying to skirt the edges of this ban. My one and only interest here is in putting an end to this drama. Talking for several months didn't work. Warning them not to try and find holes in the ban didn't work. Blocking is all we have left. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A way forward

(e/c)Furthermore, to Beeblebrox's suggestion "Take it to a wider forum or back to ArbCom if you want", we do not need to take it back to ArbCom because they addressed this specific issue. Coren specifically identified this type of edit as the type one should not do, but is not covered by the ban. One option is to ask for an amendment to the ruling, as Coren suggests, but I believe there's an easier approach. In the very next bullet point (in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification ) Davies points out

The discretionary sanctions regime in this case give administrators great leeway in restoring order and even gives guidance matching conduct to appropriate sanctions. These sanctions may be applied by any uninvolved administrators of their own volition, which means no prior process on any noticeboard is necessary. All that is required before an administrator acts is a "cease and desist" message on the editor's talk page.

That's all that is needed. Remove the block, issue a cease and desist, and if it happens again, block.--SPhilbrickT 21:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This action doesn't enforce the discretionary sanctions, but the topic ban. In addition to the arbitration decision in which they were told they were topic banned, all topic-banned editors have been treated to the unusually explicit statements of the community (at WP:AN), the arbitration committee (at Request for Clarification) and the uninvolved admins (here in the Mark Nutley case yesterday) saying with one voice: "We Meant It!" --TS 21:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning William M. Connolley[edit]

This is cut and dried. The topic ban is to be broadly interpreted, and this edit [151] violates it. I'm off to block Mr. Connolley for the next two weeks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Generous. I was typing up an opinion to go for the full month the decision allows, this was such a complete and flagrant disregard of the ban. Courcelles 19:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Marknutley just got the same, so I figured we'd use two weeks as a starting point. I'm more than willing to escalate for repeat offenders. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I concur with the block reason and the length (since Marknutley got the same it makes a good starting point). FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • I'm on the fence about this as well. While WMC should desist from any activities related to climate change, notifying users about vandalism is undoubtedly a good thing. That he posted on his talkpage instead of reverting himself indicates that he intended to comply with at least the letter of the ban. It appears to be a moot point now, but the block does appear to have been within the wide discretion allowed by the topic ban. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:51, 26 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.

Any block, or action under a block, needs to be clear, and the reasoning explained, so that outsiders like me can review. On the face of it, this looks like punitive BS. ArbCom's ban does not extend to discussing the matter on user talk pages, an issue that was under serious discussion around October 21-22. To my knowledge ArbCom has not clarified that. To reduce the ArbCom decision to OMG don't even think of climate change is an absurd extreme, and would speak poorly of ArbCom if that were their approach to handling contentious topics. If WMC is to be blocked for this action could someone clearly state the applicable sanction, the behavior in question, and how the behavior fits the sanction? - Wikidemon (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)