Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive77

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

Contents

Solicitr[edit]

Blocked by HJ Mitchell.

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

Request concerning Solicitr[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Jehochman Talk 19:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Solicitr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding#General restriction
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [1] Serious assumptions of bad faith]
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [2] Warning by 2over0 (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Topic ban
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
The same editors, as well as possible sock puppets of the banned, are raising the same editorial debate without putting forward any reliable sources whatsoever.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning Solicitr[edit]

Statement by Solicitr[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Solicitr[edit]

Result concerning Solicitr[edit]

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

Cut and dry violation of the restriction, which is one of the least ambiguous remedies ArbCom have ever come up with. All the paperwork is in order—they were notified of the case and counselled on how to avoid sanctions last month by 2/0. Blocked for 24 hours since it's their first block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster [edit]

Wee Curry Monster is subject to a standard 0RR restriction for all articles about or concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar for 30 days. Wee Curry Monster is warned against bad faith accusations and further disruption. Richard Keatinge is warned to refrain from incivility. All recent, active editors on the articles Gibraltar and Demographics of Gibraltar will be warned that the topic area is subject to discretionary sanctions (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Discretionary sanctions).
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 Wee Curry Monster[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Imalbornoz (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
"[Topic banned for 3 months]: Should Justin A Kuntz return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision" (the principles of the resolution can be seen here:[3] "editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth to competing versions", "[avoid] unjustified failure to assume good faith, using Wikipedia as a battleground", "Where different viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content, fairly representing the weight of authority for each view."
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltar#Discretionary sanctions (Especially: "Editors wishing to edit in the area of dispute are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. Any editor who is unable or unwilling to do so may wish to limit his or her editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.")


Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [4][5][6] His first edit after his 3 month topic ban was to include in the lede the very controversial term that was being discussed just before his topic ban and about which consensus was reached to remove it (and which provoked this comment from him[7]). He then edit warred repeatedly instead of sticking to BRD.
  2. [8][9][10] His fourth edit after the return was to remove consensus text that was being discussed when he was topic banned (reached after very long discussions), and then he edit warred with different editors to keep that text out.
  3. [11][12][13][14][15] The edit war mentioned above still goes on today, with different editors, in several articles.
  4. [16][17][18] another edit war with Cremallera and Richard Keatinge at Timeline of the history of Gibraltar
  5. [19][20] yet another edit war in Timeline of the history of Gibraltar with Ecemaml
  6. [21][22][23][24] Edit war with 3 different editors to include some text he knew was false (and unsupported by the source he cited) until an admin told him he was wrong.[25]
  7. [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Has repeatedly accused other editors of tag teaming (an improvement over his previous calling other editors “fascist fuckwits”, but clearly disruptive and a lack of good faith assumption)
  8. [34][35][36][37][38][39][40] Other repeated accusations: “choosing to misrepresent his position”, misrepresenting sources, ownership, resorting to bad faith attacks, poisoning the well, filibustering, tendentious editing…
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [41] Warning by Richard Keatinge (talk · contribs)
  2. [42] Warning by Imalbornoz (talk · contribs)
  3. [43] Warning by Imalbornoz (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Topic ban
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Justin / Wee Curry Monster has returned to edit the article, but he is not following the principles stated in the Arbcom decision: Conduct and decorum, Consensus, National and territorial disputes and similar conflicts. He is not launching the personal attacks that he used to, but otherwise his behavior is completely disruptive and, like another editor (Richard Keatinge) said, it verges on incompetence. Here he explains in length one -of many- very exasperating episode that is a good example of what I mean. Another example: There have been 60 comments in the talk page in Justin's absence, and no edit wars; now we are at a rate of more than 300 comments per month and several edit wars (starred by him) going on. If this is not a clear proof of disruption, then I don't know what is.


Responses to comments below:

As a response to several comments about who is to blame for the edit wars, I should emphasize some points:
  1. No edit wars happened during Justin's absence, even though there are many editors with different POVs
  2. It has been Justin vs. Richard Keatinge, Ecemaml, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick and myself (Justin vs. one at a time or vs. several at once); the only common factor has been him.
  3. The subject of the edit wars were texts that were under discussion. Justin edited (repeatedly) to impose content that he knew was rejected by other editors, something that has turned an already difficult discussion into an almost impossible task.
  4. If you look at the dates of the reverts, you will see that Justin has reacted almost instantly in each instance. Other editors (I have personally made it a point to act like this) have many times asked Justin to self-revert and return to discussion as per BRD, and have waited several days before I even thought of reverting his edits.
  5. Like EdJohnston has said, Justin's edit summaries are "bombastic".
I know everybody has some responsibility in an edit war, but I think that any enforcement should take into account who is the cause and who has reacted. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Vassyana comments about the enforcement: The sanction that I request to be enforced is not about the topic ban (which is already a few months old like Vassyana has noticed) but the part that says: "Should Justin A Kuntz return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so." I say that he has failed to do so since his first edit after his return, especially: Conduct and decorum, Consensus, National and territorial disputes and similar conflicts.
Justin's first edit happened in October. He's right to say has learnt to be WP:CIVIL, but his conduct has otherwise been very disruptive since the first edit. I have waited until now hoping that Justin would start to behave according to those principles. This request is a last resource. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Answer to EdJohnston about the edit war in November: We did not discuss on the definition of "Gibraltarian" but a much more prosaic issue: the source cited by Justin said that there were 23,907 Gibraltarians (literally, in page 2[44]), not 30,000. Why Justin reverted several times to say that there are 30,000 Gibraltarians using this source is beyond my understanding (even when he was told he was wrong). Imagine the discussion with Justin about controversial topics (territorial disputes, etc) if it goes like this even with such trivial matter-of-fact issues... See my explanation to JodyB -the admin who told Justin he was wrong- here. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Answer to Vassyana regarding section links not diffs: It's difficult, because the discussion is huge. Anyway, just a few links:
About the result concerning Richard Keatinge: he is warned for his long comment saying that WCM showed incompetence when discussing in this controversial set of articles. It's true that he wrote it, but he never disqualified WCM personally, just described (with diffs) WCM's behaviour and offered some suggestions for the discussion. I'm pretty sure that he would not have been warned had he written this as a complaint in AE. In fact, the current result concerning WCM is proof that he has not been very competent since his return (I hope he changes now) and the general sanctions are in line with what Richard suggested. That's why I don't think he deserves a warning more than the rest of us (the other editors) do. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will support the softer sanctions Vassyana proposes to help improve WMC's behavior (that's my main worry). Hopefully, if this is able to drive the message home to WMC and -at the same time- he realizes that Richard Keatinge and I have accepted to soften the sanctions, he will change his ways, view us in a better light and reduce the tension in the article... I really hope so. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[45]

Discussion concerning Wee Curry Monster[edit]

Statement by Wee Curry Monster[edit]

I have not repeated any of the conduct that lead to my topic ban, rather I have learnt an important lesson regarding WP:CIVIL and have tried to avoid a repeat. This smacks of retaliation, rather than engaging in the consensus process, Imalbornoz has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and sought admin intevention to remove me from consensus building. We currently have an amicable discussion re content and rather than engaging in that process Imalbornoz is seeking admin intervention yet again. I request that Imalbornoz is warned about WP:CIVIL and in particular the requirement not to bring up past disputes for which an editor has repeatedly apologised and has not repeated the same conduct. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I can provide many diffs of bad faith and personal attacks but would prefer to use the consensus building process on the talk page. This I believe would be a lasting solution to the article's problems. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

Regarding accusation of edit warring in 4 above. May I draw attention to the fact that Imalbornoz is misrepresenting the situation. I was not told I was wrong by User:JodyB rather Imalbornoz misinformed said admin, I later provided clarification [46] and I note the matter was concluded amicably without rancour with an amplification of my edit [47] that considerably improved the article. Admin User:JodyB actually requested that we both cease frivolous complaints [48].

Regarding my comments on tag team edit warring, sadly this has occurred before, and was used to impose content over and above objections. I don't think it is unreasonable to discuss this given the clear and repeated threat to impose content eg [49].

Regarding the repeated misrepresentation of my position. [50] which is presented as [51]. Misrepresentation of my position is common as well as referring to a position from which I've already compromised. I can provide more diffs.

Sadly I can provide numerous examples of uncivil comments but I have a thick skin and would prefer to work on content. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Additional Statement[edit]

In response to my edit, which is now complained about, I was the focus of a series of personal attacks [52], [53], [54]. Note the comments did not discuss the edit per WP:BRD but focused solely on the editor. I'm happy to discuss content but will not respond to personal attacks. The text I edited is problematic, it focuses on providing details of what Imalbornoz refers to as "atrocities" and "desecrations", both WP:WORDS that WP:LABEL. Its also completely unbalanced, WP:CHERRY picking certain facts and ignoring others.

We attempted an RFC. I requested that text be allowed to stand on merit, that request was ignored and the walls of text referred to in the Arbcom case resulted that deterred any outside opinion.

During and prior to the AN/I discussion mentioned below I was subjected to a series of personal attacks. At no point did I respond in kind. None of those responsible have received any sanction as a result. Imalbornoz [55] was warned to refrain from personal attacks but note they were repeated above.

Ed states below that Imalbornoz and I were apparently equally guilty of edit warring on 12 November. I do not accept that, I walked away from the discussion [56] following the personal attacks [57]. It was a dumb lame dispute, that was easily solved on the talk page but when the discussion turned intemperate I walked away from it. Note that I did not respond in kind to personal attacks, so I am somewhat bewildered by accusations my conduct was comparable.

My edit summaries are and I quote "bombastic", please, what has happened to WP:AGF? I replaced text that violates WP:NPOV with neutral text, stating what was wrong with it. Come on, how else would you summarise that in an edit summary? I also removed a NPOV tag I'd added but please note that when Richard and Imalbonoz "reverted" this was not restored. Please also note the first diff presented by Ed is not a revert, its an edit.

There is a serious problem with WP:OWN on this article right now. This case is intended to drive another editor from editing. Please consider the evidence and don't leap to judgement. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This is now getting silly. Show me a diff where I have been in violation of Conduct and decorum, Consensus, National and territorial disputes and similar conflicts. Regarding Conduct and decorum this personal attack by Imalbornoz is clearly in violation, regarding Consensus may I draw attention to these reverts [58] and [59] both by Imalbornoz that ignored the consensus on the talk page and in which he did not participate till after these reverts, compare with this Discussion where I am clearly building a consensus and the sole source of disruptive comments is Imalbornoz eg just when we have agreement, Imalbornoz chooses to disagree [60] claiming the text is not neutral. Finally ref National and territorial disputes and similar conflicts see this threat - again by Imalbornoz. May I ask a point for procedure, are unsubstantiated allegations unsupported by diffs not a personal attack per WP:CIVIL? Knowing Imalbornoz if they existed you can bet he would have posted them - clearly they don't.
  • I have asked a number of editors not to post on my talk page, solely because of past intemperate comments from those individuals. Discussions on content belong on the article talk page and in the past comments on my talk page have attempted to bait me into an intemperate response.
  • Regarding this diff, presented by Imalbornoz. I did try to engage discussion on the talk page [61] and [62] for example, following a series of personal attacks I may add. He chose to ignore that, instead preferring to lobby for admin action. Regarding his explanation, I pointed out that Gibraltarian refers to both residents and natives - Gibraltarian status being required for residents. My points on that matter were reasonable.
  • Regarding his final point, note I did not bring up past disputes and requested a focus on content not editors. This has been lacking from Imalbornoz he has frequently brought up past disputes in complete violation of WP:CIVL I have not repeated any of the conduct that lead to my topic ban - he has no evidence whatsoever that I have. This appears to be an abuse of the WP:AE process to discourage my participation on that article. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I note that yet again I am falsely accused by Richard of suppressing mention of San Roque. I don't, I never have, and I have always been willing to compromise but simply object to an edit that says the exodus went to San Roque, seeing as San Roque was founded by refugees from Gibraltar 2 years later. Remember this is an overview and if you check other online overviews, they don't feel the need to mention it. All I ask is that either this information is supplied or we go for a more general term; a compromise that resulted from mediation. I find the text favoured by Richard and Imalbornoz misleading and that is why I object to it. Again this is an example of my position being misrepresented as a means to paint me as unreasonable, whereas a perfectly reasonable compromise is rejected to favour a text that misleads. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

How do I appeal against this?[edit]

I am going to appeal against this.

  1. I never shrank from the fact that my conduct prior to the arbcom case was uncivil. I haven't repeated that conduct.
  2. The baiting conduct you referred to. I believe this was quite deliberate and was done to elicit an intemperate response. I further believe that this done with the aim of bringing this case to WP:AE. In that it seems they were successful, I am prejudged based on past conduct and this completely ignores the fact I haven't repeated it.
  3. I'm baited to try as a concerted campaign to bring matters to WP:AE, instead of dealing with the problem of baiting conduct this is punishing the victim. That is fundamentally unfair and unjust.
  4. You assert that Imalbornoz hasn't baited me. I beg to differ in that regard, this diff in particular above. I have apologised more than once for that remark [63] and as noted by User:Atama that remark is uncharacteristic [64]. I repeated an unreserved apology during the workshop and again elsewhere. The same remarks are constantly brought up again and again. The issue here is that as I disclosed at arbcom and to a few colleagues here I have been diagnosed with PTSD. Those remarks were made at a particularly difficult time for me, it was painful to have to publicly talk about my condition and this is constantly brought up to fling in my face reminding me of a painful time. Repeating remarks, sincerely apologised for is contrary to WP:CIVIL, its worse when they're trying to push a button.
  5. The only person I have referred to as "fascist fuckwit" is the fascist dictator General Franco. I have never referred to an editor as a "fascist fuckwit". Imalbornoz's evidence is deliberately twisting facts here. I also think this is baiting.

Hence, I would suggest the following:

The proposed remedy does not address the problem of baiting on the article. Its the baiting that has caused tempers to fray and was responsible for a lot of the remarks used against me here. I would like it to be noted that despite the baiting I haven't resorted to anything like the same uncivil conduct seen previously. Any remedy should address this and I don't think it does. I would suggest in this respect that the editors Imalbornoz and Richard Keatinge are admonished and reminded that they will be subject to the discretionary sanctions if it is repeated.

I feel the proposed topic bans are overly harsh. I have been intently involved in consensus building on the talk page lately. The conduct you seem to think is problematic was some time ago and is not ongoing right now. Hence, this would be punitive not preventative.

In order to address edit warring, BTW I don't think the problem is anything like as bad as it has been. Gibraltar should have a 1RR restriction.

I think there is a problem with the text that was in the article. It is fundamentally at odds with our policy concerning NPOV. I have tried to discuss this but the response focused on mention of "atrocities" and using WP:WORDS that WP:LABEL. There has not been a policy based argument against my edit, it has focused on dragging up the past and used terms that were baiting. The text there was imposed in the manner alluded to by Pfainuk above. I propose two possible remedies. a) an RFC where text is allowed to stand on merit, with none of the named participants allowed to lobby for their preferred text. b) if medcab take the case. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Wee Curry Monster[edit]

It might be worth noting that recent comments of Imalbornoz have led to the AE reminder and that others in the debate have been engaging in rather baiting behaviour (Richard's long rant accusing Justin of incompetance is especially helpful. And this is a person who claims to be a neutral mediator.). I'd argue it is no place of Imal and Richard to bandy around sanction threats, as they have done, with someone they so clearly despise and have prior history with. Justin has issues with various parts of what is proposed (mostly based around suitability for a main article over a stub), others have similar concerns that overlap on areas with Justin's. It is claimed he is obstructionist...yet Richard and Imalbornoz have proved equally intransigent (Especially in view of Richard, who casually dismisses Justin at every turn, providing no rational as if he is on some hell bent crusade to cause trouble). I hope the person looking at this looks over the history carefully, and looks at the verbal battering one takes from walls of texts that either go around in circles or are out to insult a user. --Narson ~ Talk 00:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: It was asked if action was required...I'd say no. There is nothing here other than the usual attempts to use AE to bully editors into a consensus they don't agree with - On controversial articles it can often take a while to get cnsensus on wording, AE shoud not condone use of itself as a bypass to this difficult but necessary process. The only blocks I'd see would be Richard for repeated personal attacks, and that is outside the scope of AE. --Narson ~ Talk 11:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree here. Though I'm not actually convinced the personal attacks are outside the scope of WP:AE given the arbitration ruling. Hence my comments below. Pfainuk talk 18:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The main problem here is not any one edit or dispute. It is the immense amount of futile argumentation about everything, and specifically its incompetent handling by WCM in particular. Those who wish to reprise the arguments so far may trawl the archives, starting perhaps with Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 14. I wouldn't want to impose such a task on anyone, it's only required if I fail to make clear here how frustrating it is to try to discuss with him. Commonly, his arguments/edit summaries quote the Wikipedia policy which he thinks is relevant, without actually explaining why the policy might be relevant. Between trying to understand what his summary means, trying to correct his misinterpretation of sources (check the table of arguments at the end of Archive 19), trying to produce a text which will not prejudge several nationalist points, and trying to cope with further ill-considered edits/undocumented changes to what he's proposing, we get nowhere.
It's just over a year since I joined this discussion, responding to an RfC. I came in at Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 16, and from well before then the archives record acrimonious and ultimately vain attempts to include Wee Curry Monster/Justin A Kuntz in various consensuses. (Not that he was the only problem at the time.) As I have previously argued, I do not feel that Wee Curry Monster has sufficient competence to contribute usefully to this page. I judge that he is doing his best in good faith, but simply does not understand how to take part in a productive discussion. We have had many months of filibustering and disruption, with good editors and wellmeaning mediators being driven away and those who stay the course wasting huge amounts of time. It's often been easier to leave him to have the last word in the hope that he will realize how unhelpful most of his comments are. Short of decisive intervention (as we have recently had in one specific issue), I see no reason to anticipate improvement.
One specific issue may illustrate the general problem. We are currently getting nowhere with the mention of San Roque as the main destination (with current implications for at least one national narrative) of the Spanish refugees from Gibraltar after the Anglo-Dutch conquest of 1704. For a couple of years Justin/WCM has been trying to keep it out of the article, with the main reason for their flight, namely fear after riotous invasion and atrocities committed under guarantees of safety. The consensus text (minus references) is: "The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain." Justin/WCM replaces this with a passing allusion and a minor piece of original research: "Attempts to win over the population to the Imperial cause were frustrated by the disorder that followed. The effects of this, combined with the expectation of a Spanish counter attack led most of the townspeople to leave." (Those coming new to this specific issue and wanting to look at the references may wish to check the quotations currently available at User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar.) The San Roque issue here is a major theme from October 2009. We achieved the consensus text only when Justin/WCM was banned, and the issue returned with a bang, with other deeply contentious edits, on Justin/WCM's return.
While Justin/WCM has now served his ban, the arbitration remedies included specifically "Editors wishing to edit in the area of dispute are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution...", and that advice on dispute resolution includes "Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages.". Making highly contentious edits and following them with semi-relevant wrangles, accusations, and disclaimers does not help us to build a better encyclopedia and it is a behaviour pattern which might reasonably attract enforcement action under the terms of the existing arbitration decision. Without some decisive external action this page will continue to go nowhere. I am not sure that bans are required; if some particularly saintly admin has time to to keep a watching brief on the page and occasionally give firm and enforceable advice, this may solve the problem. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
When Richard refers to getting people involved in consensuses, it's worth making the point clear. In general, such "consensuses" occurred when everyone on one side of a dispute supported an edit and everyone on the other side opposed. The side with the larger number of editors - including Richard and Imalbornoz - was able to strong-arm their content into the article. But this was before the Arbcom ruling.
Richard has recently again proposed a similar tactic be used when he believed that three of us agreed an edit and Curry Monster did not. We were not even close to the point where this might have even been considered, had it been someone else who had opposed. The whole point of asking for the topic ban back is so that this can be institutionalised: so that when Curry Monster's view is inconvenient to Richard and Imalbornoz, it can be ignored without fuss. That isn't reasonable and in this case would be strongly disproportionate - particularly given as Curry Monster has not repeated any of the behaviour that led to the topic ban.
I notice at this stage also that Richard quotes sections about editing carefully, and resolving disputes calmly through civil discussion and consensus-building. I therefore ask editors to judge this - Richard's attempt at the "Discuss" part of the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle - in that light. You will note that by starting up the discussion with a large number of personal remarks, barely touching upon the edit concerned, Richard completely derailed the discussion and with it any hope of resolving the dispute calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building. You will also note Richard and Imalbornoz's continued refusal to discuss the issue.
You may also find this gem fairly illuminating: may I suggest that a 2000-word essay on the subject of another editor's "incompetence" could not reasonably fit within the bounds of "edit carefully" or "[r]esolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages" even if the two editors concerned hadn't had to go to Arbcom to try and resolve their differences. I can only come up with two explanations: either Richard was trying to bait Curry Monster into the sort of behaviour that led to the topic ban in the first place, or he was so naïve that one would have to seriously question his competence. All in all, given how much stirring Richard has done, I think he's just about the last one who should be preaching to us about editing carefully and resolving disputes through civil discussion.
This is not the place to discuss the content. That would be the article talk page. In the period immediately preceding this AE, no editor had given any objection to Curry Monster's edit that could be sustained by policy. Read the discussion, you see that Curry Monster was told he was not allowed to be WP:BOLD, but the objection might as well have been "because I said so".
On filibustering and disruption, another point that Richard raises. Let me point out this RFC. Note that Curry Monster opposed the RFC, asking for strict anti-filibuster rules: otherwise, we would be filibustered. That was overruled by the admin concerned and, surprise surprise, the RFC was filibustered. And who started the filibuster? Imalbornoz and Richard. There are two sides to this dispute and Imalbornoz and Richard have not behaved well. Pfainuk talk 18:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I note the proposed remedies and will accept whatever the admins conclude in a spirit of learning. I also note that we (including Wee Curry Monster) are presently engaged in a constructive process on the talk page and bans would actually disrupt this. I'd like to thank MilborneOne for his recent moderate intervention which I believe made this possible. I suggest that what this page needs is an admin prepared to guide the process with a velvet glove and just a hint of ferrous metal, and I note also that MilborneOne is the first who has successfully done so - others have either withdrawn hurt or quietly folded their wings and left. I suspect in fact that WCM and others will now cooperate much better and that we can get the article's improvement process back on track.
I originally arrived at this page in response to an RfC just over a year ago, and have found that my attempts at dispute resolution, and those of multiple other editors, have been systematically rejected. Every other stage of the DR process has been tried, all failed until WCM left the article, when we came up with a consensus text reflecting the opinions of multiple other contributors. This was changed to a deeply non-consensus text where, after a couple of reverts and some nonconstructive discussion, it presently remains. In this context I am accused of "concerning" personal attacks and incivility. These do not describe my understanding of my contributions. I refer to a long essay describing the problem and finishing with a suggested solution. I started with: "If we do this properly with diffs, I really hope that something useful will come out of it. I summarize by saying that (WCM)'s main problem at present... is incompetence; in the first place, dragging up old issues, but more importantly, failing to organize the discussion stage of WP:BRD.". I gave multiple examples with diffs, and finished with "I do have a suggestion which I hope will allow (WCM)'s knowledge and interest to be used constructively. If we all wish to put suggested edits on the talk page, with references, and then to engage in clear, relevant, and specific discussion in accordance with Wikipedia's principles, this would be welcome and useful. I really hope that he does so." I am aware that these comments have been taken as insulting; they were and are intended to be a constructive, accurate, even temperate, analysis of the issue under discussion, neither uncivil nor a personal attack, and I observe that the suggestion I made is now being followed on the talk page with good effect. (I'm not trying to claim credit, that goes to MilborneOne and those who are now participating in a constructive process.) Nevertheless, as I say, I will accept whatever the admins conclude, and try to learn from it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
One last point, I've never accused anyone of editing in bad faith. Indeed, I've specifically disclaimed anything of the sort, more than once, and I'm happy to repeat my firm opinion that everybody has in fact been editing in good faith. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I also believe that Wee Curry Monster can offer useful contributions to this encyclopedia, indeed he is doing so at the moment. For what my opinion may be worth, I don't feel that a ban would be useful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Wee Curry Monster[edit]

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

I am currently reviewing the history of the talk page and various links provided. One thing I will immediately take note of is that this is an arbitration enforcement request based loosely on a 3 month topic ban than expired 4 months ago. Further links to any relevant discussions (section links, not diffs, where possible) and admin discussion regarding the matter would be helpful. Please bear with me while I take the time to carefully read over the history and current happenings. I will try to reply in a few hours, but not may be able to do so until tomorrow. Vassyana (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Point taken regarding the discretionary sanctions remedy. That noted, this is terrible both sides around. I am organizing some diffs, but it seems obvious to me that the primary actors need some sort of break here. Posting so you I've not abandoned this. Vassyana (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As an immediate action, I have protected the article for two weeks and posted a talk page notice. Vassyana (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


Reviewing diffs up to a week before this enforcement notice as "recent". (Note: An occasional exasperated expression or general sign of frustration will not be noted.)

Here is my general understanding of the background to recent activity, after an in-depth review of the history:

  • This is a topic area of some dispute.
  • It has been the subject of an ArbCom case.
  • A key figure in the current dispute and disruption is a named party to that case that was topic banned.
  • The recent flareup was instigated by a series of bold edits and edit warring on the subject, in the manner and with the attitude that lead to previous sanctions.
  • Other editors participated in the edit warring.
  • Some editors engaged in uncivil and baiting behavior. Richard Keatinge notably responded with exasperation and incivility.
  • Over the past couple of weeks, calm and civility has mostly returned to the topic. Most editors are focused on the content and remaining civil.
  • Wee Curry Monster is continuing a long pattern of pushing a particular point of view and disrupting normal consensus building.

Solutions:

The edit warring by Imalbornoz in December was limited to 2 single reversions, so I see no reason to press a named warning or sanction at this time. All editors should take the time to pursue dispute resolution to help with hashing out consensus. Any further disruption by any editor should be dealt with under sanctions. If no other admin or outside party objects, I will close this discussion, notify editors, and add it to the case documentation. Vassyana (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Noting that all named users have been contacted.[65][66][67][68][69] I have also posted a request for other admins to give things a look over.[70] Vassyana (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Replies to editors: WCM, Richard. Vassyana (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Specifically noting that Richard believes WCM should be allowed to continue participation in discussion. If those WCM has most sharply conflicted with believes he should be permitted to remain, I'm inclined to think he ought to be. I'm willing to trade out the topic bans for 0RR and a stern formal warning about bad faith accusations. Does that seem appropriate? Vassyana (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It might be good to get more Gibraltar editors to comment, to see if the new problems are enough to call for enforcement. If we're listing all the misbehavior since 1 November, I'd offer two examples:
A. The skirmish around November 12 where editors argued about the definition of 'Gibraltarian' and got into an edit war, which later quieted down. See the thread at ANI which closed on 14 November.
  • In this war I think Wee Curry Monster and Imalbornoz are about equally to blame.
B. Revert warring by Wee Curry Monster at Gibraltar, which started on 7 December and continued on 12 December. See these diffs:
  1. 12:26, 7 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* History */ replacing POV section that violates WP:CHERRY with neutral text, removing POV label")
  2. 21:46, 7 December 2010 (edit summary: "rv edit actually contravenes wiki policy on NPOV see WP:CHERRY")
  3. 20:55, 12 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 401989802 by Imalbornoz (talk) rv WP:CHERRY & WP:COATRACK policy wins over strong feelings")
In the 7 December fight, I think it's mostly Wee Curry Monster who is doing the warring. He did revert twice in one day (7 December), and his edit summaries are bombastic. —EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Vassyana's summary and the proposed actions. I had a look at this a couple of days ago (and have been monitoring this AE since) and what stood out among the recent edits was the "reverting while discussing" actions of WCM. That has to be discouraged: when a discussion on content is active, editors should refrain from reverting. The circumstances of the revert combined with the inflammatory language used warrant sanctions. The sanctions proposed are appropriate. I also agree with the summary in respect of Richard Keatinge and the proposed action (a warning).--Mkativerata (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with Vassyana's new suggestion. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Vassyana's summary and proposed actions, though I have some concern we will be back here again soon. WCM's actions at Gibraltar since the close of the Arbcom case hardly inspire confidence. I suggest that the next step could be a 1RR/week restriction for WCM and possibly others, if they allow themselves to participate in edit wars. The editors working on this article should always wait for a talk page consensus before making futher reverts. If there is a dispute and unanimity can't be reached, consider an WP:RFC. Should the article go further downhill, in spite of Vassyana's actions here, I encourage any admin who is following the case to impose further restrictions without the need of opening a new AE request. EdJohnston (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Noting that I agree with EdJohnston's additional comments here. I see my proposals as saying "enough is enough". If someone fails to get the point, any admin should feel free to make the point clear without creating a new AE thread every time. 1RR/week restrictions would be appropriate. Extended topic bans and civility paroles would also be appropriate, given talk page disruption. Whatever works to eliminate the disruption and get things on track. Vassyana (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Reviewing this case and Vassyana's solutions, I find both the summary of the case by Vassyana and the proposed solutions to be satisfactory. I see no problem with the sanctions enacted. Good deal. --Jayron32 23:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions[edit]

Logged at the ArbCom case page.[71] Vassyana (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Benkta[edit]

Single purpose, disruptive account out to pick old fights. Indefinitely blocked.
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 Benkta[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Jehochman Talk 19:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Benkta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding#General restriction
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Abuse of talk page And again, after the prior edit was objected to.

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

Not applicable. (A user returning with a new account does not get a new warning.)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Indef block or topic ban. Checkuser will probably come back negative because the puppetmaster is stale.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
A number of editors have been topic banned or banned entirely. These periodically return with new accounts, engaging in the same sort of soap boxing and talk page disruption that got them banned in the first place. Based on behavior, and this being the user's first edit to Wikipedia ever, it is pretty clear that they are recycled.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning Benkta[edit]

Statement by Benkta[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Benkta[edit]

Do you have any evidence to link this editor with any of the blocked/banned editors you allude to and not just a newbie, albeit a POV-pushing newbie?

Yes. Their behavior is indistinguishable from Neutral Good (talk · contribs), and BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs). Check contribution histories. How many new users show up, on their first edit ever, posting tl;dr screeds like this one? The probability is 99% sock puppet, 1% innocent but intemperate new user. I don't know about you, but I have no way to look through the wire and see who's on the other edit. We have to judge editors by their actions. Additionally when two editor's behaviors are indistinguishable, we may treat them as a single editor, even if they might be two different people. (Per WP:MEAT.) Jehochman Talk 19:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm just going to reply here for clarity and to save the scrolling. You may have a point, but, after a review of NG's contribs and the two edits by the respondent in this AE request, I'm not convinced enough that Neutral God = Benkta to block on that basis alone. Other admins may feel differently, so this shouldn't be seen as a decline. In the meantime, I'll warn them and inform them of the case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
If NG registers a new account, what is to stop them from resuming past disruption? Are we giving them an unlimited number of bites at the apple? Jehochman Talk 21:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
You've missed my point. I don't have the requisite level of certainty that this editor is NG to block them. If another admin has that level of certainty, then they're more than welcome to block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Benkta[edit]

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

Do you have any evidence to link this editor with any of the blocked/banned editors you allude to and not just a newbie, albeit a POV-pushing newbie? Also, their talk page is a red link. Please inform them of this request. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot say with 100% confidence that this is a BfP sock. However, I can say with 100% confidence that this is a single purpose account created to continue prior disputes.[72] Blocked indefinitely as such and notified.[73] Unless there are objections from other administrators, I will close this discussion appropriately. Vassyana (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Courcelles 05:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify. Recent decision concerning me[edit]

Superseded by appeal, 03:38, 14 December 2010 #Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dojarca. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Mkativerata wrote on my talk page:

you are prohibited from commencing or participating in dispute resolution or enforcement processes (including arbitration enforcement) relating to user conduct within the area of conflict (as defined by WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions) for a period of two months

Following this I request some clarification.

1. Does it mean I am effectively topic-banned from any Eastern-European area, at least from any dispute resolution in that area?

2. Does it mean that enforcement of ArbCom decisions by users who are uninvolved in the corresponding articles henceforward be considered WP:BATTLEGROUND and those users be sanctioned similarly?

3. Can Mkativerata be considered uninvolved administrator here in light of his controversial conduct in previous report regarding Piotrus and also concerning his block of user Igny for his re-incerting the POV template into the much-disputed article Mass killings under Communist regimes [74]?

Thank you.--Dojarca (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

In response:

1. No. The restriction only concerns disputes relating to user conduct. You are free to participate in content-related disputes, such as RfCs.

2. No. Legitimate good faith requests for enforcement are welcome.

3. Obviously I reject the suggestion I am "involved". I note that Igny was blocked for a clear 1RR violation. The other party to that edit (User talk:A50000) war was also blocked, even though he/she did not breach 1RR.

Regards --Mkativerata (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Thanks for clarification. What about reporting violations on the WP:AN or directly to an administrator?
2. It seems now that it is rather risky to report such enforcement now. Can you clarify further what would you consider a good-faith request?
3. Well re-inserting the POV template into a heavily-disputed article in my view should be considered reversion of vandalism, which is exempted from any sanctions. A user should not wait another 24 hours just to re-insert the template to show that the article is disputed. The very template says "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." and there is ongoing heavy dispute in the article.
To me it seems that your decisions are inclined in support of certain political views. I may be wrong of course, but can you disprove such impression?--Dojarca (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
2. I can tell you what a legitimate and good faith request is not: the request lodged in the circumstances described above. Editors should take care when reporting to this board: the instructions in red at the top of the page say exactly that.
3. I'm not going to indulge in that line of questioning. I take a very conservative view of being "involved" (see here for an example). --Mkativerata (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
2. I read the instructions carefully before reporting. What's wrong with it? What should I or other editor do to avoid the same further?--Dojarca (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Ask yourself whether a reasonable person would consider it a genuine attempt to seek enforcement of a sanction in light of an active violation, or a bad faith attempt to remove an "opponent" from the topic area. In light of your comments on the Offliner/Piotrus request, and your seeking enforcement against a stale alleged violation, a reasonable person could only conclude the latter in your case. But I'm not going to engage further in this discussion; if you would like to appeal the sanction imposed on you there are mechanisms available. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It was already stated that Piotrus was not my "opponent" in the articles in question: I did not edit them. The only my concern is the ongoing coordinated POV-pushing by the EEML members, and I clearly stated that. You also imposed the same sanction on Offliner in which case the diffs were fresh and in no sense "stale".--Dojarca (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


whether a reasonable person would consider it a genuine attempt to seek enforcement of a sanction in light of an active violation, or a bad faith attempt to remove an "opponent" from the topic area.

It's obviously both, and will always be. How many AE threads are not seeking to remove an opponent? It is not our job to be naive and punish one, reward another based on how clever a disputes warrior is at decorating their intent. Just check the Piotrus thread. He requested punishment of Dojarca and you gave it while condemning Dojarca for doing the same but, unlike Piotrus, having not violated any ArbCom ruling. You are being played like pawns. To avoid this we should stick to our job, which here is to check if the diffs are violations. That's the bit we need to work on anyway, if recent threads are a guide. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd only reply to that by assuring editors that the restrictions imposed on Offliner and Dojarca do not necessarily mean that enforcement action in this area, where warranted, will be less likely. My recent blocks mentioned above (which were done without any enforcement requests having been made) should demonstrate that the topic area is being watched closely. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
But it definitely will deter people from requesting enforcement here, especially against EEML members.
By the way, I have to ask again, do you prohibit me from seeking any administrator's enforcement of rules in the topic area? For example, these edits [75] [76] look like vandalism to me, but I do not know, can I complain about them in WP:ANI. The user in question has already used your, Mkativerata decision to attack me [77] and thus use my helpless situation.--Dojarca (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
If the edits appear problematic, you can discuss them on the talk page (or even revert them if you are not edit-warring). You've done both. No problems. But you are prohibited from seeking sanctions against the editors concerned. (Your suggestion of the edits as "vandalism" only confirms to me that this is a good thing). --Mkativerata (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
So they are free to do whatever they want? --Dojarca (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
No. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
If no, how can I report their violations? This makes me rightless in Wikipedia. To me it and also that you do not consider those edits by Smallbones in any way disruptive confirms your political agenda. Sorry.--Dojarca (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
And again, regarding arbitration enforcement "effectiveness". Of thе recent AE requests to which you or EdJohnston drafted decision: Vecrumba was pardoned, Martintg was pardoned twice, Piotrus was pardoned twice. Only one request against Martintg was granted, but by another administrator, HJ Mitchell before you replied. But even here you suggested to shorten the block. Looks like you are effectively covering up EEML members.--Dojarca (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
My recent blocks mentioned above - and huh, you are proud that you blocked Igny for restoring the tag? :-/ --Dojarca (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Captain Occam[edit]

Captain Occam's appeal is declined after being reviewed by two uninvolved administrators.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Appealing user 
Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Captain Occam (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Indefinite ban from the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages, with the exception of AE threads and discussions where my own editing is in question. Imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive75#Captain_Occam, logged at Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions
Administrator imposing the sanction 
EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
[78]

Statement by Captain Occam[edit]

In the thread where I ended up being sanctioned, EdJohnston initially proposed that under the discretionary sanctions authorized on race and intelligence articles, all topic bans from this case should be extended to every page on Wikipedia. As stated in EdJohnston’s proposal, this would have applied to all five of the editors currently topic banned from these articles: myself, David.Kane (talk · contribs), Mikemikev (talk · contribs), Mathsci (talk · contribs) and Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs). Timothy Canens commented in the thread expressing approval of this idea. Mathsci, the editor who posted the AE complaint, subsequently contacted both EdJohnston and Timothy Canens via e-mail. (Stated by Mathsci here.) Shortly after being contacted privately by Mathsci, EdJohnston modified his proposal in the AE thread to a specific sanction for only me and Ferahgo. No admins other than the two who Mathsci was privately in contact with commented on this new proposal before the thread was closed.

When I brought up this sanction in EdJohnston’s user talk, EdJohnston agreed with me that it would have been inappropriate for his decision in this thread to be influenced by private correspondence with the person making the complaint, and denied that this had been the case. He also expressed uncertainty over whether it had been the best idea for him to take action against me in this thread after Mathsci had contacted him privately about this. However, EdJohnston was unwilling to tell me what other than Mathsci’s e-mails had caused him to replace his original proposal, which was a general extension of all topic bans from this case, with a specific sanction for me and Ferahgo. More importantly, even though for me and Ferahgo to be specifically sanctioned implies that we’ve done something wrong to warrant it, he was unwilling to tell me what misbehavior from me and Ferahgo we were sanctioned for. I asked him what we had done to result in this sanction four times, the first three times he responded to other aspects of my posts without answering this question, and the last time (my last comment there), in which I asked him this and nothing else, he did not reply at all.

I consider there to be three problems with this decision. The first is inadequate input from the community: before being implemented, this sanction should have been discussed by some uninvolved admins other than the two who had been privately contacted by the editor making the AE complaint. The second problem is that according to Wikipedia:AC/DS, before being sanctioned under discretionary sanctions Ferahgo and I should have been warned that our behavior was a problem. We were not warned, and if we had been told in advance that something we were doing was problematic, we would have been willing to avoid whatever it was from that point forward. And finally, despite multiple requests in his user talk, EdJohnston has been unwilling to tell me what misbehavior on my and Ferahgo’s part this sanction was based on. As far as I know, I haven’t done anything problematic since the end of the arbitration case—of the three diffs from me in Mathsci’s AE complaint, one was telling me Maunus in his user talk that he had misquoted me on the talk page for one of these articles, and the other two are from a discussion that an arbitrator (Coren) had asked me to initiate.

According to Wikipedia:Admin#Accountability, as well as this ruling from the Durova arbitration case, admins have a responsibility to explain the justification for the actions they take. EdJohnston has refused to do this, and as a result I still do not know what misbehavior Ferahgo and I were sanctioned for, or even whether this sanction was the result of any misbehavior from us. Since we also were not warned before receiving this sanction, as is required for discretionary sanctons, I think this sanction should be replaced with a warning for her and me to refrain from whatever behavior from us this sanction was based on, if it was based on any.

Response to Vassyana[edit]

The only possible enforcement whose rationale was discussed in either of those two threads was EdJohnston’s original proposal, which was to make a general extension of all of the topic bans from the R&I case. As I said in the discussion in EdJohnston’s user talk, I would not have considered it a serious problem if that had been done here, since that would not have implied specific wrondoing on anyone’s part. However, the proposal which was discussed there is not the decision which ended up being made. After he was contacted by Mathsci via e-mail, what EdJohnston decided to do was not to make a general extension of all topic bans, but to specifically sanction me and Ferahgo.

Since this was a sanction directed at two specific editors, not just a general re-interpreting the outcome of the R&I case, one would assume that Ferahgo and I have done something wrong to warrant this. Ordinarily, editors do not receive individual sanctions if there has not been any problematic behavior for the sanction to be based on. But if Ferahgo and I have done anything to warrant these individual sanctions directed at us, EdJohnston has not been willing to tell us what it was. Whatever problematic behavior this sanction was based on, we also should have been warned about it behavior before being sanctioned for it. Is it clear now what my problem is here? --Captain Occam (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to Timothy Canens[edit]

This is what Wikipedia:AC/DS says:

"Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

The purpose of this policy is so that editors who are engaging in problematic behavior can have an opportunity to learn what they’re doing wrong and improve it. In Ferahgo’s and my case we still don’t know what behavior EdJohnston sanctioned us for, because we received no warning before being sanctioned, and when I asked EdJohnston afterwards what behavior he sanctioned us for, he was unwilling to tell me. This definitely goes against the spirit, if not also the letter, of the discretionary sanctions policy. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston[edit]

The sanction being appealed by Captain Occam is one that I issued due to a previous closure of an AE case. It is easy to search the AE archives for the topic of Race and intelligence by using this URL. There is a precedent for Arbcom getting more strict regarding topic-banned editors engaging in process discussions if you check their recent opinions regarding WP:ARBCC. This suggests that they want people who are under a topic ban to let the issue go, and not continue to press their views in forums like RFC/U. See for instance Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WeijiBaikeBianji. In that RfC you can see opinions being expressed by Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin, and Mathsci. Now Mathsci is on the point of having his topic ban lifted by Arbcom so I did not think that it was important to extend the process sanction to include him. In my thinking, the sanction was only intended to apply to specific editors who were already topic banned. If Arbcom does not lift Mathsci's topic ban, and if there are further problems on R&I regarding him, then the issue on him participating in process discussions should be revisited. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Timotheus Canens[edit]

Mathsci's emails had no influence whatsoever on the comment I made. They relate only peripherally to Occam, and while they did list a number of diffs apparently related to FtA, I did not look at, and to my best knowledge have never looked at, the contents of said diffs. T. Canens (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Also, users sanctioned by name in a decision do not, as far as I am aware, require a separate warning before discretionary sanctions can be imposed under the provisions of the same case. Surely the sanction itself and the associated finding are more than enough to alert the user that there are serious problems with their editing? T. Canens (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The case clerk's notification that the case has been closed and you have been topic banned is ample warning. T. Canens (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci[edit]

Vassayana informed me of this appeal by Captain Occam, of which I was aware. He requested that I comment, although I prefer not to at this stage, I might make more detailed comments at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment at some later date.

  • About emails: there are matters that cannot be discussed on wikipedia, where real life identities are concerned. That is the case here and ArbCom is fully aware of the issues. No information of any relevance to AE was passed on to either Timotheus Canens or EdJohnston.
  • About my recent block: it was lifted as soon as Georgewilliamherbert resumed editing on wikipedia, following comments by other administrators. I understand the other editor is still blocked. I don't see any relation that has to this appeal or to a possible lifting of my topic ban. Other users have lobbied for me not to be unblocked or for my topic ban not to be lifted.[79]
  • About cronyism: I do admit to liking Roger Davies. Is there something wrong with that?

Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin[edit]

EdJohnston, I appreciate your finally explaining this. From my understanding of your comment, you didn't intend to sanction me and Occam for specific misbehavior, but only sought to extend the topic bans from the R&I case in general. Mathsci is therefore excluded only because he's likely to have his topic ban lifted anyway. It'd be helpful if you could clarify whether my interpretation of this is correct. Vassyana and possibly others seem to be under the impression that that there was some specific misbehavior from myself and Occam that warranted the sanction, but based on what you’ve said that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Even if this is right, though, it still amounts to two editors being sanctioned without any specific behavior that it’s based on, and no warning either. Whatever the thinking behind this sanction may have been, it still needs to be determined whether the outcome is consistent with policy. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I notice that Mathsci has just been blocked for 48 hours because of edit warring, [80] which is one of the behaviors for which he was topic banned in the original case. Yet the arbitrators are still voting for his topic ban to be lifted, while he's blocked. Does anyone else find it strange that this is considered fine, while Occam and I are the ones receiving additional sanctions? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to Aprock[edit]

I don't think it's fair to compare Mathsci's editing behavior to only Occam's. Occam and are covered by the same sanction (most likely due to WP:SHARE), so his behavior should be compared to both of ours. I don't think I've ever caused anywhere close to the same level of disruption that Occam did before the arbitration case. I've never edit warred, I've never been an SPA (as should be evident from my editing history), and I've only been blocked once, for accidentally violating my topic ban on Henry Fairfield Osborn, which I acknowledge was a mistake and won't be repeated. Like Occam, I find it difficult to contribute to articles while this drama is going on, but until the past few weeks I’ve been fairly active on Wikipedia and put a lot of effort into contributing to articles as well. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by VsevolodKrolikov[edit]

I was also notified by Vassyana, so I'm guessing that makes me involved. I can find no difference in behavioral issues between Captain Occam and MathSci that merits this different treatment. EdJohnston refers to the RFC triggering matters: MathSci actually emailed me a few days before the RFC opened, warning me of the possibility of meatpuppetry on the part of Captain Occam and Ferahgo and that ARBCOM was concerned (as he did not notify me on my talkpage for almost two weeks, I didn't read the email till much later). As I have stated before, this emailing of people off-wiki (and also with no public notification that communication has taken place) for me raises concerns about transparency, and it seems just as much an interference in process in the topic as Captain Occam's. I therefore find the difference in treatment difficult to understand. I also don't follow EdJohnston's reasoning that if a ban is probably going to be lifted in the near future, violations of it now are not important. We'd surely be wanting exemplary behaviour in the run up to an early removal. I'd rather have seen both stay topic banned. I think Ludwigs2 is right in saying that neither has really let go.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Captain Occam[edit]

This is a very disturbing development in this long running matter. I expect the sanctioning admin to provide a clear explanation of his actions. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC).

The admin has now provided his reasons. I find them to be thin and insuffcient to justify such a severe action. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC).
I don't know about 'very disturbing', but this does seem to be warped even by wikipedia standards. If I can summarize what seems to have happened here:
  • Occam (who self-evidently and self-admittedly has difficulty letting this issue go) seems to be overtly guilty of nothing more than talking to other editors about R&I issues - Note that all of Mathsci's original AE diffs point to user talk pages
  • Mathsci (who self-evidently has difficulty letting go of the conflict), has obviously been hunting for anything that could be used as leverage against Occam, and (in a style that is nauseatingly familiar to anyone involved in the original arbitration) has seized on some minor indiscretions by Occam and inflated them - via a generous application of wp:weasel words and significant confabulation - into some sort of massive, evil subterfuge that must be stopped.
  • EdJohnston (whom I have noticed in at least one different context has a tendency to take strong actions on weak rationales), bought into Mathsci's conspiracy theory and acted on it as though it could be taken at face value. I don't necessarily fault him for the action he took, but I do question how deeply he looked into the issue before he acted.
Frankly this whole debacle is like watching two street-corner crazies battling over which of their imagined world-destroying conspiracy theories is 'true' by trying to convince passers-by that the other guy is actually part of the conspiracy. Mathsci is a bit more credible as a rule, and here - through sheer persistence and practical statistics - he managed to hook himself a fish (yeah, sooner or later someone gullible was going to walk by and not see the crazy-talk for what it is). There's no 'win' side to this that I can see, and the only real loser is the project, because this tends to legitimize paranoid fantasy as actuality and only guarantees that we will see a lot more paranoid fantasy in the future. As I said, warped. --Ludwigs2 14:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Since Captain Occam topic ban was effected, the user has consistently managed to find a way to be involved in related controversies. The topic ban was meant to reduce the drama but it appears that Captain Occam is never far from some sort of drama. Pardon the editcountitis, according to Occam's edit count, the user's pattern of contributions is still pretty much the same as it was before the Arbcom case. Occam spends very little time on content contribution, at present only 13%. The bulk of his time seems to be spent on these endless battles on the Wikipedia namespace or canvassing other users for support. Judging by previous trends, I am struggling to foresee a situation in which Captain Occam is not involved in any drama in the future, or where Captain Occam is peacefully contributing to the encyclopedia and a broad range of readers or editors appreciate his work. For this reason, I would suggest that rather than consider Occam's appeal, it might just be a good idea to consider ending much of this drama once and for all by putting a sitewide ban on the table. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

  • It does not seem fair to me to extend a block indefinitely based on such a meager amount of (possible) wrong doing. Muntuwandi's repeated accusations that Occam and Ferahgo have circumvented their topic ban have not been backed by any convincing evidence. Neither are they this time. Furthermore I am worried by the fact that an admin can even think of using tools while refusing against a user without wanting to explain his reasons for doing so to the affected user. This is clearly not the way it sanctions are supposed to work in an opoen community. I also concur with Ludwigs sentiment that this is becoming more and more like watching absurd theatre. I would reverse the topicban extension to the original one year for all parts and extend a warning to all parts to keep their noses out of eachothers business as well as from the topic area they are banned from. ·Maunus·ƛ· 04:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The community has spoken several times on AN/I, expressing its fervent desire that this particular conflict be shut down for good, and urging that administrators use the powers given them by ArbCom to do so. I see the action here as being nothing more than an admin carrying out the will of the community. Mathsci's role has been primarily to bring issues thaqt need to be dealt with to the attention of ArbCom & admins – something that a number of arbitrators have acknowledged – and his actions are in no respect equivalent to those of Captain Occam & Ferragho the Assasin, who seemingly are incable of simply letting it go. I urge uninvolved admins not to fall for this false equivalency, and to affirm the restrictions under discussion here as a necessary means to an end the community has specifically called for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
      • BMK: "Mathsci's role has been primarily to bring issues that need to be dealt with to the attention of ArbCom & admins" - in other words, you feel that Mathsci's wikihounding and (dare I say paranoid) reconstructions of reality are justified? sorry, as far as I'm concerned Mathsci and Occam are two peas in a pod - if you took away their sigs I'd have a hard time telling them apart. The only real difference is that Mathsci has somehow managed to develop a name for himself; seriously, if an IP or new account tried even a tenth of the crap that Mathsci gets away with it would be indef-blocked as fast as the nearest admin could move her mouse. I can't respect an 'ends-justifies the means' attitude, and I can't respect a dual-teir justice system (where 'good' editors can behave worse than 'bad' editors and get approval for it), so there is simply nothing to respect in the argument you just gave. care to try another? --Ludwigs2 17:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • If Mathsci's committment to avoid this topic is absolutely true, there is no reason for him to be requesting enforcement, participating in relevant dispute resolution or being involved in the administrative matters. AC gets it wrong sometimes as well; that AC were considering lifting his restriction altogether does not mean that everything was above board. The fact that Mathsci is currently blocked for similar behavior that was identified in the arb case is somewhat troubling. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • At the highest level, it's certainly true that the negative aspects of Captain Occam's editing behavior and Mathsci's editing behavior are similar. But the details tend to be very different. Part of the problem with this case has been the ongoing problems of puppetry, lobbying, cabals, canvassing, and SPAs. The distinction between the two editors becomes even clearer when one compares the positive aspects of their editing behavior. In this regard there is no comparison. I suspect that this is why there is such a wide disconnect between the sanctions. aprock (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    Actually, I agree. I just reject the notion that we need to condone Mathsci's bad behavior in order to retain his good behavior. He is obviously firmly committed to the project, he is obviously a very capable editor, but he needs to stop with the uber-aggressive, ever-escalating attack style that he habitually uses. I get tired of hearing the "Yeah, that was a shitty thing to do, but look what he did over there" defense; If he can do it over there, he can do it here, too, so that's no excuse. I mean, this applies to me as well as to him - I can be a hard-nosed son-of-a-biatch when I get my goat up - but I generally have the common sense to step back and tone it down when I get too hot under the collar. If Mathsci did the same it would make a world of difference in my attitude towards him.
    I think there may be issues with Occam, yes. Ideally, I want to be able to see what those issues actually are without having to dig the truth out of the kind of hyperbolic misrepresentation of semi-imaginary conspiracies that Mathsci offers. --Ludwigs2 18:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Captain Occam[edit]

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

I am contacting the involved editors to comment here. It seems to me that the rationales and circumstances are well-detailed at the following two locations: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive75#Captain_Occam and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_WP:ARBR.26I.2Fscope_of_topic_ban_of_Mathsci. Do you have a specific question regarding it? Vassyana (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

From my perspective reading over the material linked above, I really don't understand what is confusing. I get the clear message that admins were saying "enough is enough" and did what they thought would nip the problem in the bud. The decision clearly indicates why two editors were left out. The context regarding MathSci is also included in the links I provided.

It seems very clear that Captain Occam was continuing conflicts by working around restrictions and that was the basis of the sanction. Captain Occam's refusal to acknowledge the conduct and heavy emphasis on tu quoque arguments leaves me disinclined to second guess the sanction. Vassyana (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, Captain Occam

  • It seems that the sanction was designed to fortify the initial ruling ("Occam is topic-banned from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed"). That Occam had been on the fringes of that initial ruling apparently warranted a stronger sanction which explicitly expanded upon "broadly construed", since the initial sanction apparently hadn't stopped the drama. I'm also disinclined to second-guess the sanction. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Note: I mediated this case briefly, before it hit ArbCom. That was content-oriented, and I don't remember the personalities well. Make of that what you will.
    • Re to Ferahgo the Assassin: yes, this is bothersome. So is MathSci's tendency to initiate administrative threads without informing those involved. (edit: may have happened just once) I get the sense that the current sanction against Occam is unbalanced vis-a-vis MathSci, since that bad blood runs both ways (mid stream, one bird, two stones, and other mixed metaphors and cliches). Xavexgoem (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Er... ArbCom just voted to lift Mathsci's topic ban, presumably in part because he's agreed not to edit race/intelligence pages any further. In that light, I'm not sure how you would propose balancing the sanctions. Captain Occam could likewise appeal to ArbCom, but given that he (and the related account Ferahgo the Assassin) have consistently danced around the edges of their existing topic bans, I would be somewhat surprised if they were successful. If you have one editor who insists on pushing the boundaries of his topic ban, and another who's voiced a clear intent to respect it, then I don't think it's "balanced" to expect or apply the same sanction to both. MastCell Talk 18:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dojarca[edit]

Dojarca blocked for 2 weeks and topic banned for one year after socking was discovered, rendering this appeal moot.
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 
Dojarca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Dojarca (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Dojarca is prohibited from commencing or participating in dispute resolution or enforcement processes (including arbitration enforcement) relating to user conduct within the area of conflict (as defined by WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions) for a period of two months, save for processes concerning his or her own conduct. To avoid doubt, "commencing or participating in" includes doing so by proxy.
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Mkativerata (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
He watches this page, so possibly, no need to notify him.

Statement by Dojarca[edit]

The ArbCom remedy reads as follows:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The following requirements for the remedy did not met:

- I did not repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process

That is what I did here and elsewhere in Wikipedia was in line with Wikipedia's policy and if even I made any mistakes somewhere, I ceased any incorrect behavior upon notification. A first notification was always sufficient. If I was somewhere involved in repeated and serious disruptive behavior, please point to such instances.

- I was not warned before applying the remedy.

Of course, I knew about that ArbCom case and the enacted sanctions because I participated in it. On the other hand, I was not warned about any related to this AE request incorrect behavior from my side. It is obvious that the warning requirement is essential to give a user possibility to cease any wrong behavior before the sanctions and only in the case the user ignores such warnings (i.e. "dispite" them) continues wrong conduct he shall be sanctioned.

It is evident also that the warning requirement allows the administrator to formalize what behavior he considers against the rules and what he requires from the user. Since I was not warned, I had no idea of whether I break the rules and how could I improve my doings.

Just the fact of my participation in the arbcom case does not allow any administrator to impose any sanction against me without preceding warning.

The sanction enacted by Mkativerata not only does not me allow to request for enforcement of ArbCom decisions about the case with which I am familiar and involved, but also prevents me from communicating with uncivil users in the course or normal process, including reporting such basic violations of the rules as 3RR and personal attacks, placing me in a dependence of whether it would be spotted by a random administrator. Henceforward anybode can insult me and I have no right to complain.

Statement by Mkativerata[edit]

Noting that I am aware of the appeal. I have no statement to make, feeling my (and other admins') comments in the original AE speak for themselves. I will probably not comment here unless (a) I'm asked a direct question by an uninvolved administrator; or (b) I feel I'm being misrepresented.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

@Ncmvocalist: I did not. I considered that Dojarca's involvement in the Offliner/Piotrus AE (and offer to act as Offliner's proxy in future AEs) made him sufficiently aware of the dangers of lodging battleground AEs. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The diff is here. Offliner was on notice of DIGWUREN sanctions. I considered that sufficient warning. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd be interested to hear Dojarca's explanation for the socking - as Fut.Perf. alludes to, the editing pattern is a little unconventional. But of course that he/she was using multiple accounts to lodge AEs in recent weeks is grounds enough to act. We can't allow sockpuppeteers to infect topic areas like this. My impression from this appeal has only firmed my confidence in the original sanction: language such as my "right" to take someone to AE and other noticeboard reflects an attitude unconducive to productive involvement in disputes. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Dojarca[edit]

The diff provided is obviously not a diff for Mkativerata's warning, but a diff of my post. The fact that you put this diff here suggests that you thought I proxied for Offliner which is not the case. If I proxied for Offliner I would say so or at least say that Offliner provided the diffs, but I evaluated the significance of the evidence myself or something similar.

Regarding that you consider enforcing ArbCom rulings a battleground behavior. If enforcing ArbCom decision is a battleground, then why the decision itself is not battleground? Maybe we should accuse ArbCom in battleground behavior against the respected EEML group?

What can you say about the Offliner's request regarding Martintg? Was it also a "battleground AE"? Which further AE against EEML will be considered battleground? Should all editors who posted here now be considered "warned" and blame themselves if punished following an AE against EEML? Dojarca (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement (not really more like a puzzlement) by Volunteer Marek[edit]

Ummmm.... why is that next to last statement [81], using a first person singular, as in referring to Dojarca, signed by User:MathFacts? Am I missing something? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like naughtiness. I've blocked and launched an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dojarca to determine the nature of the puppetry more exactly. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
As much as an SPI appears to be proper (no comment on the length of the block) here, I strongly object to Deacon using his administrative tools in this matter. He simply is too involved, as found on this board before and as evidenced by his frequent participation in EE-topics related dispute resolution (I'm actually quite amazed that he can state "(I) don't consider myself involved" with a straight face). There's plenty of truly uninvolved admins who are perfectly capable of acting here and in EE-topic related matters in general. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I think he must be unblocked and have an opportunity to respond at this page and in sockpuppet investigation. Biophys (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

@Timotheus Canens - it might be noteworthy that the MathFacts account was used as recently as two weeks ago to file another spurious AE request against User:Lvivske: [82]. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess this explains why during EEML ArbCom case evil mailing list members were begging everybody involved to be checkusered, but the glorious and indisputably honest "content opponents" flatly refused en masse. Dojarca, Loosemark, Altenmann... I am pretty sure there are more socks and at least one (but probably two) group accounts among the "content opponents". --Sander Säde 09:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sure. If everyone who vote in Arbcom elections is checkusered, then why not checkuser everyone who appears in the list of logs and bans? This is a significant part of long-standing problems in the area. Biophys (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification from Petri and others[edit]

Wait! So I can create various alternate accounts (calling them "sockpuppets" would be a personal attack!!!) for my various activities here on Wikipedia and that's all alright? I can have one account for my Poland related topics, one for my Economics related topics (maybe a separate one for Economics of Poland topics), one for Mexican history topics, one for commenting over at AN/I, one for bringing articles to AfD I don't like, one for voting in ArbCom elections, one for reverting User:Bob (I don't think there really is a User:Bob, but if there is, no offense, Bob), and one for filing spurious requests at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcements? That's all legitimate?

Crap! Why didn't anyone tell me? I'll get crackin'...

Of course I'm joking. Seriously. Anyone stop and ask "what the hey did Dojarca need that second account for except for the purposes of disruptive battleground behavior"? The apparent intention of some folks here to fall over themselves in trying to come up with some kind of excuse for the guy - especially since in other cases they were quite happy to swing the ban hammer swiftly and heavily, is a bit worrisome. And that's not even addressing Deacon's light weight, "damage control" two week block after he supported Dojarca. Sometimes AE makes my head spin. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

@Petri: For editing mathematics related articles without harassment form members of the EEML group. I believe Dojarca was high up in the "enemies list". - that's complete nonsense on so many levels:
  • He did not just use the account for mathematics related articles. He used it to file battleground AE requests.
  • He was never harassed by anyone from EEML. If you gonna allege harassment please provide evidence. Otherwise this is just a personal attack.
  • In fact, in light of first point, the situation's quite reverse - he used the account to harass various editors via spurious requests rather than vice versa.
  • Dojarca wasn't on any "enemy list" because there wasn't one. In fact I don't think he was ever even mentioned on the list. Don't make stuff up. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • ... unless he's got some other account that you're referring to that we're unaware of, that may have been mentioned on the list. If so, time to fess it up. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Responses by Peri Krohn[edit]

Response to Fut.Perf.

Please have a closer look!

In fact, the evidence shows that Dojarca has done exactly the right thing in using his two accounts. Dojarca (talk · contribs) was involved in controversial political topics which ultimately resulted in the WP:EEML arbcom case. Dojarca withdrew from editing on 17 February 2010 and his few edits after that have been directly linked to the EEML case. These include opening Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of the Holodomor and making an EEML related argument, reverting a move of Occupation of the Baltic republics by Nazi Germany, and participating in Talk:Communist terrorism. When commenting on AE cases relating to the EEML case he has always logged in as Dojarca.

MathFacts (talk · contribs) started editing in March 2009. His early edits consist exclusively of non-controversial topics like Indefinite sum. I cannot find any edits in MathFacts edit history to articles that have been in dispute in the DIGWUREN or EEML cases. In November this year he made an edit to Roman Shukhevych (history), that was twice reverted by Lvivske and Galassi, prompting MathFacts to start an AE request on this notice board. I cannot see any overlap here, Even though the Ukraine is in Eastern Europe, I do not think it has ever been in the scope of interest of Dojarca or the EEML group.

  • MathFacts/Dojarca had full right to keep his political and maths related edits separate.
  • MathFacts has not turned to political EE topics after Dojarca withdrew.
  • When returning to old EEML disputes it was exactly in line with policy for Dojarca to log in with his old account.

If someone disagrees with me, please point out a single edit that MathFacts/Dojarca did with the wrong account. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – As to the question of whether it is appropriate to comment on the EEML case after withdrawing from the disputes. The EEML topic bans are only temporary and will soon expire. It is quite possible that we will again see the same participants in the same disputes. In the meanwhile I see a trend on the anti-EEML side: these editors too have withdrawn from the topic area – and for the most part, from following the edits of EEML members. This situation has only been possible because of the trust that the topic bans are effective. Inability to enforce the topic bans will force the anti-EEML side to actively engage in the topics and scrutinize EEML edits. I would find such an outcome most unwanted. -- Petri Krohn (talk)

Response to T. Canens

The policy the explicitly allows MathFacts to use Dojarca as an alternate account is Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses. The example presented for privacy:

Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area.

Dojarca is now a single purpose account editing only in an extremely narrow topic area of Baltic occupation theories and related process pages. The topic area is highly controversial. Several Eastern European countries have passed laws which criminalize presenting some points-of-view on the topic area. In addition to prison terms people active in the topic area may face travel bans and other harassment from security services and law enforcement officials. In fact, I know of cases, both real and alleged, where Wikipedia editors have been targeted by such actions. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Re 2

Yes, MathFacts filed an AE request. I cannot see any connection between that dispute and the edits of the Dojarca account. Also I do not accept your argument about "procject space". "Editing project space" in WP:ILLEGIT applies to "misleading, deceiving, disrupting, or undermining consensus." There is no case for misleading or deceiving. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to Volunteer Marek

Re: "Dojarca need that second account for?" For editing mathematics related articles without harassment form members of the EEML group. I believe Dojarca was high up in the "enemies list". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Questions by uninvolved Ncmvocalist[edit]

Mkativerata,

  • when and where (if anywhere) did you warn Dojarca to cease making reports of this nature to AE? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Could you provide a diff for that offer? Also, when and where (if anywhere) did you warn Offliner to cease making reports of this nature to AE? I appreciate the latter of my questions is concerning a separate action and is not going to be directly covered by this appeal, however, there is a relationship which is likely to influence the outcome of this particular appeal in one way (while affecting the outcome of the potential appeal of that action in another way). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

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

  • Other than statements made to date, answers to my questions, and the AE, I've also looked at the clarification thread that was made on this AE noticeboard and the comments made at the AE which resulted in Offliner being restricted (I've also commented on that).
  • In regards to Dojarca's restriction, which is why we are here, I am inclined to oppose this particular appeal at this time. Dojarca was already aware of the high likelihood that a similar restriction would be applied like with Offliner, but pushed ahead with making the report of a relatively stale violation. Though I don't believe Dojarca is proxying on Offliner's behalf, I was concerned with the comment he made here where he offered to proxy, as well as (more particularly) the other comments he made in the clarification thread above. I'm convinced that it is not beneficial for Dojarca to be reporting further violations of these decisions, unless he/she is directly affected (if someone reports Dojarca for something, Dojarca should be able to participate in the thread, and if Dojarca reports someone, it should be because that someone is, for example, allegedly being uncivil to Dojarca rather than to someone else).
  • That said, Deacon's concerns are justified and I don't believe it is beneficial to appear to be muzzling users. The decision is going to expire soon, but rather than appearing to ignore the concerns, administrators at AE (and even current arbitrators) should be especially mindful of the fact that there is a dissatisfaction over the lenient approach in enforcing direct violations of the relevant decision. If the edits/violations are in themselves helpful, then normally, that may be part of the grounds to have the restriction removed by AC. But this was not a normal case of disruption so it won't be; Community trust was breached after a concerted effort was made (improper external coordination) to thwart the very goals of this project, be it intentionally or otherwise (depending on the participant). Accordingly, trust needs to be regained by full compliance, not selective compliance. Therefore, in this case, rewarding users who toe the line of their restriction(s) with the outcome they were wanting is not advisable, and plain wrong.
  • In regards to Offliner's restriction, should an appeal be made, I would be inclined to support it. Among the comments that were critical of Offliner's behavior, a more useful warning was provided in the thread itself by a former arbitrator, and in that respect, a formal restriction was unnecessary given that Offliner appeared willing to comply with the warning (and I wasn't the only user who seemed to be satisfied with that assurance). Dojarca should have taken the hint; if that had happened, no restriction would have been imposed and we wouldn't be here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)changed from incline to direct oppose. 01:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Dojarca was already aware of the high likelihood that a similar restriction would be applied like with Offliner - this could be true only if to admit that I should know that any AE request against EEML member would lead to a restriction upon me. Because any requests against EEML members are in certain sense 'similar' to those of Offliner. That said any user now shell know about "high likelihood" of getting punished for any request against EEML (you warned!). Anyway I received no warning as required and as such I only could speculate whether such and such report would be considered inappropriate (if I received a warning I could crarify the matter with the admin). Of course I did not suppose that my request will be considered inappropriate. I thought Offliner was restricted just because he did too many requests and made callous the eyes of the admins here, and not because ot the substance of his request (the request seemed fully legitimate for me). That was also the reason why I suggested be proxy: I thought, admins would not so angry if another person makes the same request than Offliner who became boring.--Dojarca (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    Dojarca should have taken the hint; if that had happened, no restriction would have been imposed - yes, and the hint was "do not report anything against EEML, we do not want to hear it". In that case yes, there would be no restriction. But also it means an indulgency for any actions by EEML members.--Dojarca (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You still don't understand that the main problem with your AE request was not that it was against an EEML user (whatever that is), but against the same user who was considered just 2 days ago, and over the edits made prior to a recent warning to him. It is for this reason that admins consider this request to be inappropriate. Offliner's case should have served as a warning to those who use AE inappropriately. - BorisG (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    In that case the Offliner's case could not serve as warning because his request was common and usual. What warning can bring punishment for a common and usual request? Only that not to make any requests at all. If I was punished for another reason than Offliner (i.e. for old diffs), than there was obviously no warning for not making such requests. Moreover, what repeated or serious violation is posting a request with odler diffs?--Dojarca (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't have enough experience to judge if it was serious or not (certainly not repeated). However I do agree that you did not receive proper warning. But in any case, your sanction is pretty mild, you have no editing restriction, only barred from AE and such. Maybe two months without AE will be useful for you so that you can concentrate on content creation. It is like telling me at work that I am barred from attedning meetings for 2 months. That would be a blessing :). Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
No. The problem is that I am not barred only from AE but as clarified Mkativerata, from seeking any administrator intervention, including 3RR, vandalism and so on. This is certainly different. In fact I made right-less here for two months.--MathFacts (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I can hardly see this as a problem. I have been editing here on and off for years, and not once I saw a need to do any of that. - BorisG (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • As noted above, I oppose allowing the appeal at this time.
  • In regards to the sockpuppetry block, an unblock is unnecessary (in my opinion) to allow this appeal to reach its natural conclusion; the outcome of which I don't believe is the one that Dojarca/MathFile desires. The user can have their comments transcluded here if they wish. However, as the user is blocked, the thread has been reformatted to ensure that involved users and uninvolved users are in their own sections for the most part (excepting the above conversation between the appealing user and BorisG).
  • In regards to appealing the results from the SPI, this is obviously not the appeal venue...but I'd advise the relevant admin to take care.
  • An involved user has raised a policy provided exception; responding AE admins are advised to look into it before further considering any other remedies beyond those imposed at this time. In particular, a single isolated breach (which was obvious, though probably genuinely unintentional) may not be sufficient to warrant further action than what has already been taken via SPI. If further measures are needed, such action needs to be based on solid evidence in the form of specific diffs or other breaches - not a tool which provides limited assistance about where to locate some relevant diffs. It is also worth considering whether further enforcement in this same thread will simply but unnecessarily reopen the grounds for another appeal, when that action can be taken separately in another AE thread, if necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Volunteer Marek, could you please reformulate your request to remove the general battleground tone? Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think the submitted exceptions can reasonably be invoked in this case; there is an obvious overlap between pages/topics and there is a lack of consistency in the way these overlaps occur. I'd support a topic ban from the area of conflict. That said, I'm not sure it is sufficient, and I think it should be handled in a separate thread (not even at AE, but back to a general admin noticeboard as other topics are involved). Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Dojarca[edit]

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

The AE request that prompted this sanction was clearly disruptive. A request was brought against Piotrus by Offliner and resulted in a warning to Piotrus to take a more conservative approach to his topic ban and a restriction for Offliner. Two days later, Dojarca brings a near-identical AE request, only citing even older diffs than Offliner's. I don't see how that could be anything other than disruptive battleground behaviour, so I'm inclined to oppose this appeal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

  •  Administrator note: I've blocked Dojarca for two weeks because of socking; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dojarca. Anyone who wishes to unblock him for the purposes of this appeal should feel free to do so. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Unblock is quite unnecessary given MuZemike's  Confirmed finding. Given this, I'm inclined to impose a lengthy topic ban, which would moot the present appeal. Comments are welcome. T. Canens (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Just to make sure we're being fair: is there a possibility the two accounts were meant to be legitimate topic-separated accounts under the provisions of WP:SOCK, and the edit on this page was just a one-off technical mistake about being accidentally logged in with the wrong account? At first sight, I don't see recent overlap of edits on contentious topics, and the cases where both accounts have edited the same articles appear to be mostly separated by large time intervals. Fut.Perf. 18:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Ah, strike that. On a second look, both accounts were systematically active here on this page in various political threads relatively recently, which certainly does cross the line into forbidden puppetry. Fut.Perf. 18:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
A two-week block is generous if you ask me, but, absent a lengthening of the block, I'd support a nice long topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
@Mkativerata
Well even if the sock was being used legitimately, that went out of the window, using an undisclosed alternate account to edit AE is inevitably going to give the impression of purporting to be another editor, even if that wasn't the intent. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Undisclosed alternate accounts may not edit project space. 'nuff said. T. Canens (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
@Petri Krohn: that example is quite clear - "A person editing an article". Some potentially legitimate edits do not excuse clearly illegitmate uses. Undisclosed alternate accounts may not edit project space, which WP:AE is a part of, period. No exceptions. Whether that account is also sometimes used in a permitted manner is irrelevant, just as no one may votestack in an AfD or in a talk page discussion, even if they are using an account supposedly created for privacy reasons. T. Canens (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to comment out of place, but that single edit above was clearly unintentional, and did not pretend to be a different editor. - BorisG (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
What about [83] and the bunch of preceding edits? T. Canens (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Now that's wikilawyering to the extreme. For one, the general does not prevail over the specific. If they want to use that account to edit only math articles, fine, but it has (1) edited in EE-related areas, including such articles and pages as Transport in the Soviet Union, Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs, Talk:Mikhail Kalinin, Russian National Unity and Moscow which is entirely unrelated to math, and (2) been used to make an inactionable DIGWUREN AE request. Not only is it a project space ban violation, but it also violates WP:SCRUTINY, since it dissociates the user from the history. That may well have been an aggravating factor when the sanctions in this case were imposed, had we known it at that time. There is plainly and simply nothing legitimate about this account. T. Canens (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been open long enough. Long term socking is usually treated quite harshly, and I have to admit that I was a little surprised that the block was not for longer. Regardless, under the authority of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, Dojarca (talk · contribs) is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to Eastern Europe, broadly construed, for one year. This ban renders the present appeal moot, so it should be closed now. Dojarca is free to appeal this ban when their block expires. T. Canens (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Delicious carbuncle[edit]

Sanction overturned on technical grounds (prescribed prior steps regarding warning were not followed as laid down)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
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 
Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
"[A]n indefinite topic-ban for all Scientology-related edits on User:Delicious carbuncle, including but not limited to an interaction ban against bringing forward any further Sc.-related complaints against User:Cirt in any forum", imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Delicious_carbuncle. Also discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate_discretionary sanction_at AE? and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Potential WP:CANVASSING by User:Cirt.
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
[84]

Statement by Delicious carbuncle[edit]

Let me first set the record straight on a few points which seem to have been misunderstood:

  • Status of Jamie Sorrentini as a Scientologist
There appears to be some confusion about whether or not Jamie Sorrentini is or is not a Scientologist. Since off-wiki postings have been brought into this, it is odd that they were not read and understood. I believe this posting by Tizano Lugli (Sorrentini's husband) says that they are still Scientologists. Much of that posting is written in incomprehensible jargon, but that is my sincere belief. At the time I didn't understand that one could be a Scientologist and not be part of the Church of Scientology, but I have since been informed that this situation is not unique.
  • www.truthaboutscientology.com as a reliable source
When Cirt first reverted my addition to Sorrentini's bio, their edit summary was "rmv source that fails WP:RS in a WP:BLP page". Given my views on Cirt's editing of CoS-related articles, I was reluctant to take that assertion at face value. Discussion of sources usually happens at WP:RSN, so I had no objection to Cirt starting a discussion there. What I objected to was the removal of the source from Sorrentini's bio -- and only Sorrentini's bio -- while that discussion was still in progress. (The removal of the source from articles occurred after I had already indicated on the article's talk page my acceptance for my edits to be reverted, but that I felt it was inappropriate for Cirt to do so.)
Immediately after starting the discussion at RSN, Cirt posted links to it in 3 other noticeboards ([85], [86], & [87]). While I am not accusing Cirt of canvassing in this instance, it seems reasonable to assume that this would draw editors whose interests relate to religion rather than sourcing. There is now consensus about the use of this source and I am happy to go along with that consensus. In retrospect, I should not have re-added the information and I understand why it is being labelled as "pointy".
  • BLP violations on Sorrentini's bio
HJ Mitchell refers to my addition of the source as "an egregious violation of BLP". How so? The source was being used in other BLPs at the time I added it to Sorrentini's bio. There was no consensus against using the source. Although Cirt more than once made the claim that there was consensus against using this source, that is simply not true. When asked to produce a link to this consensus, Cirt linked to a discussion from 2007 which was inconclusive and in which they, then editing as User:Smee, expressed support for using the source.
I'm not sure how I was supposed to know in advance of a discussion at RSN (let alone a consensus being reached), that I should not be using a source already used in other BLPs (and in fact added to some of those BLPs by the very person who was objecting to its use on a biography that they created).
  • My involvement with Scientology
I have no involvement with Scientology. This isn't about Scientology, it is about the even application of our policies and guidelines. Anyone who believes that anything I have written on-wiki or off-wiki shows a pro-Scientology viewpoint is simply mistaken.

I wish to appeal these sanctions on the following grounds:

  • In imposing this sanction, Future Perfect states that I "knew" that Sorrentini was not a Scientologist and so my edits to her BLP were "a deliberate BLP violation". I do not know this and I believe that the opposite is true.
  • Future Perfect further states "D.c.'s professions that he allegedly was not aware about any dispute about her membership [88] don't sound plausible". I say in that diff "No one has disputed that Sorrentini is a Scientologist". To be clear, what I was saying was that there was no dispute about the facts, only the sourcing of those facts, hence I didn't see the urgency in removing the information. At that time no one had disputed the assertion. If Cirt has expressed an opinion on the matter, I have not yet seen it.
  • Cirt canvassed admins in an attempt to have me blocked. When that didn't work, they canvassed admins to direct them to the Arbitration Enforcement request. Future Perfect was one of those canvassed.
  • Future Perfect commented in the ANI thread that precipitated this request. Their support of Cirt was quite apparent at that time. I believe it was inappropriate for them to have imposed sanctions.
  • Aside from Jamie Sorrentini, I am not aware of having edited any CoS-related articles. Although I am accusing Cirt of an anti-Scientology bias, I have no position on Scientology-related articles other than in relation to our policies and guidelines. While I have no objection to Cirt filing an RFC/U about my allegations -- in fact, I would welcome it -- my part in this should not fall under ARBSCI and I feel this is simply another attempt on Cirt's part to prevent me from expressing what have proven to be valid concerns judging from the edits made thus far to the articles I have singled out.

Thank you for your time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Future Perfect at Sunrise: - I really do not understand your statement. As I have stated above, I believe Sorrentini to be a Scientologist based on the words of her husband. I believed that when I identified her as such in her bio. The information from her husband was in the off-wiki discussion you linked to in the original AE request. I am not sure why you are confused about this.

Yes, I believe Cirt created the article because Sorrentini and her husband have split from the Church of Scientology. Further, I believe that Cirt's objection to the sourcing was based on a desire to exclude information about Sorrentini's former connection to the CoS. As I have shown in the ANI thread, Cirt has added that source to several articles. As I have also shown in the ANI thread, Cirt failed to remove the source from several CoS-related articles that they had edited in the last few months. When did Cirt decide it was not a reliable source, and why did they make no effort to remove it from BLPs until I added it to Sorrentini's bio?

Why would I have any knowledge of prior discussions about the reliability of the source? I have not participated in them. I have not edited Scientology articles. I am fresh to the topic area. Which discussion would tell me that the source was not reliable? Cirt could not provide one to back their claim that there was consensus against using it. Not only is it impossible for me to prove my ignorance, there isn't even a consensus of which I can be ignorant. Your accusation is simply nonsense.

As for "this particular combination of a Wikipedia hounding campaign with the BLP violations being used as tools in this campaign that makes his behaviour so particularly problematic", I do not consider a bluntly frank ANI thread to be "hounding", but I make no apologies for the former - I am out to expose Cirt as the anti-Scientology POV-pusher that I believe them to be. Their actions are harmful to Wikipedia and the time has come for them to stop. Which BLP violations are you referencing here? I have made none in this situation, but I have pointed out many made by Cirt.

You clearly do not have a grasp on the facts of the matter. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect, it is quite evident from your replies that you have chosen to take Cirt at their word, but to dismiss anything I say as questionable. Your bias likely springs from the fact that I am "attacking" a fellow admin.
You are correct that the citation I added to Sorrentini's bio identified her as a member of the CoS. At the time I was not aware that one could be a "Scientologist" outside of the CoS, but I had read Tizano Lugli's piece declaring them to be "Scientologists". My understanding, therefore, was that they had reconsidered their split from the CoS. I now know this not to be the case. My good-faith belief at that time was that she was a member of the CoS. My good-faith belief now is that she is a Scientologist (but not associated with the CoS, except as a critic). I have tried to make the present situation clear, since I suspect I am not the only one who did not know that there were independent Scientologists.
Keeping up with Cirt's edits would require at least two people. I am only one person and I have better things to do. Here's my method:
  • Look at a list of articles created by Cirt.
  • If the article is about Scientology, there is likely a BLP violation or two that needs fixing.
  • Look at the history,
  • If Cirt has edited the article, did they neglect to remove those BLP violations?
  • Did Cirt (or Smee) add the BLP violations?
  • Done. Next article.
You should try it. It could be interesting for you. Alternately, you could pick anything involving a well-known Scientologist and see what edits Cirt has made. Take Knight and Day. Start here. Now tell me there's no problem here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply to DocJames: You seem to be saying that you have concerns about things that were published off-wiki about Cirt - this is a discussion about enforcement of ARBSCI sanctions. Are you in the right room? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

DocJames, you state that "A ban of Cirt was exactly what the Wikipedia Review it seems was hoping to accomplish with these games", as if I am representing Wikipedia Review in some capacity and as if a forum with hundreds of members holds one opinion about this (or anything). It appears that your opinions expressed here have nothing to do with the matter at hand, but are based on a dislike of that forum. When I posted a list of anti-CoS Wikinews articles created by Cirt in the original ANI thread, it was collapsed by one of their supporters because it dealt with off-wiki edits even though it is a sister project. I find it odd that so much attention is being given here to a particular forum which is independent of Wikipedia and functions under its own set of rules and guidelines. Attempts to impose Wikipedia's rules on off-wiki sites are misguided and unproductive but some people do not seem to be able to resist their inclination to try. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
DocJames, you keep harping on about Wikipedia Review. Should all Wikipedia editors who have contributed to that forum declare themselves to be involved and recuse themselves from this discussion? Do you have an account there? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes all editors who have been discussing Cirt over at WP REVIEW and calling for action are involved. You can find my edits under my user name. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Jehochman: Jehochman, I have already agreed at RSN that the source is unreliable and it should go without saying that I will not use it again. I would not have chosen to use it had it not already been in use at other BLPs. In fact, I cut and pasted most of the citation from where it was used at that time in the BLP of Alexandra Powers to save myself some typing. You have perhaps missed an important detail in all of this. www.truthaboutscientology.com is not a CoS website. In fact, it is the website of someone who is a critic of Scientology (and also runs a site called Scientology Lies). The information contained in the site is drawn from CoS publications.

This is an important point so I will try my best to make it clear to those willing to listen. Jehochman says "using a Scientology website to establish that somebody is a follower of Scientology is highly dubious". In actual fact, the use of CoS sources to establish that someone is a Scientologist seems to be common. I believe in some cases those sources are websites with testimonials from the individual, but often the sources are publications which are not available online. It is not clear to me if CoS publications are reliable sources or not since I have no familiarity with them. Cirt's POV-pushing is really just the tip of the iceberg with regard to CoS-related BLP issues, but nothing will likely change while they are free to edit CoS articles.

Incidentally, you appear to have been one of the editors to add allegations of spamming to Speedyclick.com, one of the CoS-related (or formerly CoS-related) articles discussed at ANI. That section has been removed since the Spamhaus links are no longer functional. I didn't get a chance to ask you before my topic ban, but if you recall the circumstances of the Spamhaus records, perhaps you could reinstate that section with other sources? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, Cirt has had plenty of opportunity to reply to my charges, first at the ANI thread, then at the AE, and now at this appeal. I am quite prepared to file a request for sanctions against Cirt here if the community deems that appropriate, but I do not think that should be necessary given the amount of evidence I have already presented. My experiences with you have shown that you present yourself as a polite voice of reason and suggest that we all calmly let the current situation dissipate and then address the issues at other venues, all the while making it clear that you are willing to block editors who do not go along with your polite and reasonable suggestions. I have yet to see any case where the root cause has been addressed after the immediate dispute is put aside, usually with measures in place to ensure that the participants cannot do so themselves. I have no faith that Cirt will be sanctioned if they are not sanctioned in this current proceeding and I am unable to bring any action due to my own sanctions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions regarding sanctions: I am concerned that these sanctions will prevent me from addressing BLP issues that I identified while looking at CoS-related articles over this past few days. GraemeL has already threatened to block me for bringing those BLP problems to the BLP noticeboard, so I would like to be clear on which activities are proscribed by these sanctions. Can I raise issues at BLPN? Can I edit articles created or edited by Cirt but unrelated to Scientology? Can I edit articles which were formerly associated with Scientology but have been removed from that category? For example, I was planning to nominate Alexandra Powers for deletion. Can I request ARBSCI enforcement based on Cirt's activities or must someone do that? It seems unlikely that anyone else will be willing to take that on. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


Reply to Cirt's offer:

Cirt, while I can appreciate Jehochman's suggestions and your show of goodwill in extending this offer, I must decline it for the following reasons:
  • My concerns are related to BLP and POV issues, not Scientology. While working on an article about a book by CoS founder L Ron Hubbard may improve our working relationship, I do not think it is relevant to the issues I have raised. Perhaps we could work together on something completely unrelated to Scientology when this is resolved.
  • I have presented evidence at ANI of a long-term pattern of POV-pushing and anti-Scientology activities because it is my sincere belief that you hold a bias that prevents you from fairly applying our policies and guidelines. I do no think it is appropriate or helpful to reframe this as a personal dispute between two editors which can be solved through discussion on your talk page.
  • Having publicly raised my concerns, I believe it would be unfair to you if you did not have an opportunity to publicly rebut them. Your comments thus far at WP:ANI, WP:BLPN, and WP:AE appear to be attempts to limit discussion of the underlying issues rather than addressing them.
  • You have stated that your reason for canvassing admins to impose sanctions on me at the arbitration request you started was due to your frustration over critical statements made by another editor. I cannot understand this statement to mean anything other than that you were deliberately attempting to limit discussion which was critical of your actions. I think this is both grossly inappropriate for an admin and indicative of your unwillingness to directly address valid concerns.
  • Even in the article you use as an example of your successful collaboration with other editors on CoS-related articles, you are merely demonstrating your lack of perspective. On Michael Doven, a good-faith edit attempt to separate the subject's professional career from their involvement with the CoS was made by another editor after I raised it at BLPN. You reverted it. Although some of the fluff has been removed, the article is still larded with a truly ridiculous number of gratuitous references to Scientology and Scientologists (including a reference in the lede to "the younger sister of musician Beck"). The reader is given the impression that Doven's success is inextricably linked to Scientology. This BLP should serve as an example of why I feel that I must file a request for arbitration enforcement.
I regret having to rebuff your outreach and I hope you understand this is not personally motivated. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise[edit]

I stand by my assessment expressed here [89]. D.c. was, at the very least, insincere when he was claiming there was no dispute about that person being a Sc. member, because his whole motivation in even noticing that article was evidently because he felt Cirt had only written it because the subject had broken with Sc. Under these circumstances, his professions of innocence (begin "fresh to this" and not being aware of prior debates etc.) ring hollow: he deliberately fabricated this incident in order to gain an opportunity of exposing Cirt. It is this particular combination of a Wikipedia hounding campaign with the BLP violations being used as tools in this campaign that makes his behaviour so particularly problematic and which, in my view, makes a long-term sanction necessary.

As to my being "involved": I'm not. I gave an administrative comment in the previous ANI thread, warning D.c. that I found his method of accusations problematic and that it made him liable to sanctions. Last time I looked, we are supposed to warn users before sanctioning them, right? – As for Cirt's posting on my page, as I said before, I didn't even read it, and if I had, it would naturally have made me more prejudiced against Cirt than against D.c. Fut.Perf. 07:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Further to D.c.'s defense above: D.c. now entangles himself in self-contradictions. He claims he had reason to believe in good faith that J.S. still was a scientologist, despite the 2010 reports that she had left – but he was quoting a source from before the time she reportedly split, which under these circumstances he had to know was evidently irrelevant. He is also now making that distinction between being a CoS member and being a scientologist – but in his edits to the article he was unambiguously claiming CoS membership [90]. As for being or not being aware of the backstory about the preceding discussions regarding the reliability of that website, D.c. had evidently spent a lot of time following Cirt's editing, over several months. He was able, within a day of the time the J.S. conflict was created, to cite numbers of instances where Cirt had been dealing with that source, even with articles where the link no longer was in the article (and would therefore not be findable through the external-links tool). The only way D.c. could have had of knowing about these cases was if he had systematically searched through all of Cirt's contributions. I simply don't believe he did all of that after deciding to spark off the D.J. kerfluffle, and I also don't believe he could collect all the instances where Cirt added or failed to remove that link, without becoming aware of the surrounding discussions. Fut.Perf. 08:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cirt[edit]

Please see the initial AE report I had made about Deliciuos carbuncle - the evidence of that user's actions is all there. I admit that I was wrong to post in the manner in which I did about the user to multiple user talk pages. That was inappropriate, and it stemmed from my frustration over ongoing and repeated WP:WIKIHOUNDING against me by Jayen466 (talk · contribs), which has been a quite disturbing pattern for over three years now. I let Jayen466 (talk · contribs)'s WP:WIKIHOUNDING get the better of me, and I became frustrated and acted inappropriately. But the evidence I originally presented about Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) still stands as valid. -- Cirt (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


  • Comment: In a discussion between Jehochman and Delicious carbuncle at User talk:Jehochman, Jehochman suggested that Delicious carbuncle and I should both try to move forward collaboratively together. Jehochman recommended jointly working on a quality improvement project - striving to bring an article's quality up to being ready for WP:GAC or even maybe WP:FAC. I have suggested this recommendation from Jehochman to Delicious carbuncle, in a post to User talk:Delicious carbuncle. I have recommended a quality improvement project on the book Slaves of Sleep, a book well-regarded that received positive reception about the writing of its author Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard; the book is even considered a science fiction "classic". Jehochman suggested including Jayen466 as well in this quality improvement effort. I would very much like to work with Jayen466 and Delicious carbuncle together collaboratively to improve the quality of the Wikipedia article on this book which is well-regarded in literary circles. It would be wonderful for the three of us and any other editors interested to try to refocus our efforts on improving the quality of an article within the topic, and making a good faith effort to move forward with bettering the quality of Wikipedia, together. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Update: Unfortunately, Delicious carbuncle has refused my offer (see also edit summary) to work collaboratively together with him. The offer is still open. I'd very much like to work together with Delicious carbuncle to collaboratively improve the quality of a Wikipedia article on the topic to GA or FA. :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by DocJames[edit]

What DC has written off Wikipedia is inappropriate harassment [91] [92] A ban or further interaction with Cirt was not proposed because of a persistent pattern of inappropriate editing of Scientology article but for inappropriate behavior WRT another editor.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Griswaldo[edit]

I'm on record already, in more than one venue, regarding the inappropriate nature of these sanctions. I initiated Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate_discretionary sanction_at AE? after a failed direct appeal to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise on their talk page to consider allowing a truly uninvolved admin do the job. It is important to look at the chain of events here.

  1. Cirt files an AN/I about Delicious carbuncle's editing of Jamie Sorrentini.
  2. Carbuncle decides to use the AN/I platform to air his various complaints about Cirt's POV editing of Scientology related entries.
  3. Cirt contacts various admins to help him out at AN/I, but no remedies are enacted (for the canvassing evidence see here.
  4. During this AN/I discussion Future Perfect levies the following criticism/threat at carbuncle - "If you feel those articles are problematic, then go and fix them, otherwise drop the stick, or this is going to become a boomerang for you."
  5. After no remedies are found at AN/I Cirt takes the discussion to AE, and proceeds to contqact more admins (see above link), this time appealing directly to Future Perfect.
  6. Future Perfect's first edits to the AE discussion are to impose sanctions on carbuncle.

The combination of 4, 5, and 6 above, in swift succession is disturbing to say the least. Future Perfect claims to be "uninvolved" and to not have read Cirt's appeal on his/her talk page, simply glancing at it as reminder of the AE. Well we cannot know that, nor can we know what Future Perfect's intentions were. All we know is that 1) Future Perfect issued a threat to carbuncle, 2) Cirt asked Future Perfect to come to AE, and 3) Future Perfect made good on his/her threat. If that isn't improper I don't know what is.

Then there is the matter of the sanction itself, which appears Draconian to say the least. How can you ban an editor from complaining about policy violations EVER? The supposed "interaction" ban imposed dissallows carbuncle from raising complaints about Cirt, in the area of Scientology. Really? No matter what you think of Cirt it appears to be common knowledge that Cirt has a very strong anti-Scientology POV. And now he gets a free pass from the criticism of an editor who beleives he has crossed the line? How on earth is that ever appropriate? In short I think Future Perfect erred rather egregiously here. I really wish they took my initial request with more humility and simply let someone else deal with this. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Question - Why is the sanctioning admin commenting in a section reserved for "uninvolved administrators"? Certainly at this point Future Perfect is no longer "uninvolved".Griswaldo (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466[edit]

I propose that the original complaint be re-tried, by a quorum of at least five (5) administrators who have not been solicited by either party, and do not have a history of participation in arbitration cases involving cults. Any decision to reflect consensus among said admins, with a majority of four (4) required to take a decision. Does this sound fair? --JN466 14:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That is not how AE works. We should not propose random arbitrary new procedures mid-case. -- Cirt (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
How does previous involvement with arbcom cases on cults have to do with anything? Would it be equally appropriate to find people who have never edited pseudoscience topics? OR been involved with BLPs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe T. Canens is absolutely correct. Neither editor has received a warning as required by ARBSCI. In addition, DC made the BLP edits at issue before he was sort-of warned; he cannot be warned AND sanctioned for the same behaviour, without having repeated it after the warning. The sanction on DC should be lifted, and the only thing to do here is to work out the wording of the correct warning(s) the editor(s) should receive, outlining the conduct to be avoided, and linking to the ARBSCI remedy in question. AE must go by the book, and be seen to go by the book; otherwise it is just vigilante justice.
  • Someone will no doubt say that admins could apply any sanction they liked under the earlier 2007 COFS case's remedy, and that if the 2009 remedy doesn't suit, one could be using the 2007 article probation to apply sanctions not envisaged by the 2009 case. I don't find that convincing. --JN466 11:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Attn. Timotheus Canens[edit]

Timotheus, I concur with Jehochman, below, and am really grateful to you for your diligence and attention to process detail. Delicious Carbuncle should be warned about two things:

  1. Adding a poor-quality source to a Scientology-related BLP
  2. Edit-warring to keep it in the article.

Neither should recur. Apart from that, Delicious Carbuncle does not deserve to be warned for having raised good-faith content and policy concerns about Cirt's editing. No editor should be prohibited from raising such concerns in good faith. In this particular case, several editors and admins feel these concerns may have merit, and that is something for the community or this board to look at and decide at some point in the future. --JN466 13:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Scott MacDonald re BLP issues[edit]

I don't care about AE, Scientology or who Canvassed whom, but I do care about BLPs. I make no bones about the fact that I read on Wikipedia Review that Cirt was POV pushing on Scientology matters, so I took a look.

I came to the article Jamie Sorrentini, which Cirt had created and maintained. The article was clearly not neutral, it was puffed in every imaginable way (see this version). I don't normally worry about over-positive BLPs, but I googled around and (fairly unreliable) sources identified her connection to Scientology. The blogosphere indicates she's now an noted ex-scientologist (although, again, the sources are unreliable.

The article didn't mention Scientology at all, but I wondered about Cirt's motivation and neutrality, so I performed a moderate clean-up, removing some of the puffery. I was met with Cirt's aggressive ownership of the article, and his fairly aggressive attitude [93] when I sought uninvolved input on the BLPNB. Cirt is obviously NOT neutral on such BLPs.

It was at this point DC added info to the bio claiming she was a scientologist. The material was a clear BLP violation, and poorly sourced. (More worryingly it presented her as a Scientologist when it appears she is no longer one.) I supported Cirt in the removal of it. See the discussion here

However, it appears that DC's motivation was pointed, since Cirt had used exactly the same source on a number of occasions to label living people as Scientologists. So Cirt's objection to it here was hypocritical. See the important discussion here.

The Wikipoltics and personalities here are not interesting. What's important is that Cirt is obviously pushing agendas in BLPs and that DC is willing to breach the BLP policy to make a point in response.

Cut to the chase: Arbcom ought to ban DC and Cirt from all Scientology related BLPs. We can't have people pushing agendas or fighting wikibattles at the expense of the bios of living people.--Scott Mac 16:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Should we delete all of Cirt's featured articles related to Scientology? Your statement makes no sense whatsoever. Jehochman Talk 16:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting we delete anything. I'm suggesting people with agendas don't push them on BLPs, and admins of Cirt's standing get zero tolerance here - there's no excuse. What doesn't make sense about that?--Scott Mac 16:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Cirt knows how to write proper articles. If you have concerns about specific edits, please file a report at WP:BLPN, or start a new enforcement request, rather than complicating this thread, which is not about Cirt. Let's focus on the sanction appeal. Jehochman Talk 17:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Stop wikilawyering. I'm trying to set the context here, so we don't swallow camels and strain gnats. This discussion is too spread out and atomised as it is without me opening yet another thread.--Scott Mac 17:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This strikes me, from my own reading of the relevant threads to be an excellent and concise summary of events, please let me know if something was missed. I concur with Scott MacDonald's proposed remedy. unmi 17:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I haven't commented much on the Cirt side of things so far, but I have to say I'm beginning to see some of these problems too. He may be a valuable contributor about the topic as a whole, but perhaps it would be good if he kept away from related BLPs. No opinion on whether this should be handled within this thread or yet somewhere else. Fut.Perf. 17:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by The Resident Anthropologist (talk)[edit]

I agree with the topic ban and interaction ban whole heartedly, though I disagree with the imposed length of the bans. I think Carbuncle certainly set this up as the between his statements at Wikipeida Review suggest his pleading ignorance here is misdirection.

That being said, I am uncomfortable with the way Furture Presents bans appear whether or not it is that way I am unsure.

Short timeline[edit]

  • 07:52, 8 December 2010 [94] Cirt appropriately ANI thread on DC's BLP violations
  • 22:47, 11 December 2010 [95] First comment by Future Perfect at Sunrise
  • 23:18, 11 December 2010 [96] Secondd comment by Future Perfect at Sunrise quote "otherwise drop the stick, or this is going to become a boomerang for you. "
  • 04:22, 13 December 2010 [97] Cirt Issues request appropriately files an AE request
  • 15:20, 13 December 2010 [98] Cirt's appeals to Future perfect sunrise to intervene on his behalf at AE involving Jayen466
  • 19:40, 13 December 2010 [99] Future Perfect Sunrise issues a indefinite topic-ban for all Scientology-related edits on User:Delicious carbuncle, including but not limited to an interaction ban against bringing forward any further Sc.-related complaints against User:Cirt in any forum."

In the results section it clearly says:

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

To me this is not about whether DC deserved such remedies, but rather was it appropriate after being requested by Cirt to look at the AE and had been involved in ANI. The question is whether it was truly appropriate for him to consider himself as uninvolved to enforce such actions and whether he violated the WP:INVOLVED Clause of Admin regulations.

Frankly I cannot but feel the entire situation is tainted by Future Perfects actions and cannot support these sanctions at this time

Evidence Submitted by The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Another Statement[edit]

The section Result of the appeal by Delicious carbuncle states: This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

I feel it is inappropriate for people who have commented at ANI involved with this situation and who's enforcement is under question to be editing within that section The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

  • As of 18:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC) I have yet to see any uninvolved Admins make a comment in the Result of the appeal by Delicious carbuncleThe Resident Anthropologist (talk)
    • You seem to have missed me. How do you think I am involved in this dispute? Jehochman Talk 18:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
      • apologies having reviewed your comments at ANI you are indeed correct. Above comment stricken The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment by GraemeL[edit]

As an admin who became involved with the problems surrounding Delicious carbuncle when he moved his grievances to WP:BLPN, I threatened to block him for disruption and wrote here in support of sanctions against him. However, I think that the proposed remedy (being appealed here) was far too harsh, a permanent topic ban should only be used if he continues to try and forum shop and cause disruption to other editors and other (more lenient) sanctions fail to change his behaviour.

That said, I think the current proposed sanctions, while in the correct order of magnitude, are (as is being argued by some non-involved admins) on the side of being too lenient, but feel that the current discussions below seem to be zeroing in on an more appropriate response to this editors behaviour. --GraemeL (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by unmi[edit]

On reading through some of the numerous and massive threads on this it seems to me that a picture emerges of Cirt being entirely too engaged in our Scientology related articles, to the point where niceties such as proper sourcing and intellectual integrity is thrown to the wind. For a primer see ANI Case study one. Have a look at the initial article Cirt created, as was noted on ANI, it certainly smacks of a preoccupation with scientology, rather than writing good articles.

Then note ANI Case study two, where it seems clear that Cirt is not only following the blog but is all but acting as an agent of it, for lack of better words.

I took a random jump into Cirts edit history, landing on March, this year, Cirt is very prolific, but I don't think it is too difficult to conclude that there is a pattern that emerges, almost all the articles have a relationship to Scientology. Many of the edits are, taken individually, benign, a fluff word here, removing trivially verifiable information, here, and closing an Afd that has some connection to scientology as keep, here (beckett media discontinued a magazine on neopets ( apparently a product by a company with connections to scientology ). There are numerous edits like these. I do get the impression that the decision on whether a gossip column should be considered an RS for BLP depends on whether the subject is judged to be pro or con Scientology and if the source is positive or negative, always with the result that subjects that Cirt considers to be 'pro scientologists' are put in negative light, or their accomplishments diminished.

Note that considering the source that got this whole thing started, Cirt participated in an RfC in 2007 that found it unreliable, here (his nick was smee), yet he himself adds it here in 2009, albeit as an external link.

Consider the manner of conflict resolution employed by Cirt throughout this situation. In the RS/N discussion, here, there is a very quick move to open this ANI thread, over something that frankly would hardly merit AN3, 15 minutes after the 3rd addition by DC. Then, shortly after DC starts posting specific issues at ANI, Cirt opens the initial AE thread with an assortment of charges, including forum shopping, though as near as I can tell, the posts by DC simply invited comment at the ANI thread regarding the issues raised, yet Cirt engages in rather blatant canvassing. This statement by Cirt is particularly ironic considering that he himself just opened first RSN then ANI and then an AE: "The problem is there has been no prior attempts by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) at dispute resolution or attempts to resolve the matter through discussion. Rather, instead the user repeatedly chooses to escalate the issues directly, and engage in disruption across multiple pages. -- Cirt (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)". Within the threads themselves, Cirt seems to say almost nothing, indeed it is unnecessary for him to do so as long as there is an unwillingness of the participants to look at the heart of the matter, and less so when there is what amounts to active distraction from it.

My own interpretation is that DC did indeed set out to make a case against Cirt, but frankly it seems a case that needed to be made. Within that interpretation I have believe that DC did in fact not intend to leave the BLP with a poorly sourced statement of fact. I should also say that any perceived 'disruption' would be down to Cirts strategy of escalation rather than engagement. In light of this understanding I find the initial AE result missing the mark.

There have been a number of suggestions regarding a change of venue for looking at possibly problematic behavior by Cirt, but that is not necessary, the actions of all involved parties is open for investigation and sanction.

I don't at the moment remember any prior involvement with Cirt. I don't care much for scientology, I think it is a shame that people can't rest in themselves more, nonetheless I am compelled to speak out against what I read as trying to 'right great wrongs' by way of manipulation, wikilawyering and other tactics meant to sustain a POV rather than engage in open discussion. Especially considering that, unless there is a previous account, Cirt joined wikipedia precisely to engage Scientology see first contributions, such as this (which, if duly sourced and written in a more encyclopedic tone, is an edit I approve wholeheartedly of and sympathize with). The question isn't whether Cirt is fighting 'the good fight', it is if he is fighting it in a manner where there is one.

I don't think that we as a community are really mature enough to deal with half measures when it comes to people that can command as much influence as Cirt seems to. I urge you to consider a topic ban on anything related to scientology for Cirt, and either apply it for the same duration for DC or lift it altogether for DC until an actual problem manifests itself. There are plenty of other topics available for editors of their caliber. unmi 21:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I just came across this exchange with GraemeL which, to my mind, reads as nothing more than an attempt to have DC removed post haste, and a similar one with FisherQueen, note that this is regarding ANI, and prior to the AE round of canvassing. unmi 22:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC) It seems that for the initial ANI thread FisherQueen, GraemeL, Jayron32, and HelloAnnyong all got tapped with neutral, non-campaigning notifications. unmi 23:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Littleolive oil[edit]

No matter the perceived questionable behaviour of either of these editors, haphazard application of arbitration remedies is not an acceptable way of dealing with the issues. If either of these editors was not warned and although I've been following this discussion, I'm not up on this case to know if they were or not, neither should be sanctioned at this time. We most emphatically cannot and must not ignore the due process as outlined by arbitration, otherwise mob rule takes another step in ruling and controlling Wikipedia. And it doesn't matter if the so-called-mob is perceived to be right or wrong. (olive (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC))

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Delicious carbuncle[edit]

Result of the appeal by Delicious carbuncle[edit]

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

I believe the sanction is unnecessary. However, using a Scientology website to establish that somebody is a follower of Scientology is highly dubious. If that fact is relevant to the biography, surely it would be reported by a reliable secondary source. The consensus appears to be against using this source. DC will you abide by the consensus even if you don't agree with it? Cirt, will you drop the matter? Jehochman Talk 16:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid your comment partly misses the mark: D.c. has already agreed that the source is inappropriate. The issue is that it very much appears he knew from the start it was not only inappropriate in general, but also outdated in this particular case, and he only used it in a deliberate POINT maneuvre to create an opportunity for lampooning the fact that Cirt had used the same source previously. Fut.Perf. 16:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that what DC did was malicious. Simply treat it as a mistake, ask him to stop, and if he agrees, the matter is resolved. Jehochman Talk 16:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Given the fact that this was part of a long-standing personalized conflict with Cirt, as documented on Wikipediareview and elsewhere, and – whatever his beliefs about the concrete details of the facts of that bio at any one time – the whole episode was clearly manifactured on his part, with the main goal not of improving the biography but of provoking and setting up his opponent, I'm afraid I cannot muster this amount of AGF here. Fut.Perf. 16:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I think (assuming as much good faith as I can) this was a BLP violation performed to out Cirt's use of the same dubious source on a number of articles.--Scott Mac 17:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Can we please stop making a mountain out of a molehill. A source was disputed. This minor dispute was escalated needlessly, causing several lengthy and unproductive discussions. Would you all please try to work together. Failing that, I support dishing out blocks for WP:BATTLE to those who want to keep fighting. Jehochman Talk 17:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you threatening me with a block, for handing out an arbitration enforcement sanction and defending it afterwards?! You've got some nerve. Fut.Perf. 17:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Not unless you are fighting. Are you? Jehochman Talk 17:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, I am having a collegial discussion with you. Or I would be, if it wasn't for the fact that you suddenly turned against me with childish threats. Fut.Perf. 17:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. Read what I wrote carefully and assume good faith, instead of assuming the worst. Jehochman Talk 17:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Jehochman! Where the fuck did that come from? We're tying to work out what's going on here and how we best enforce neutrality wrt Scientology, which is the point of the whole arbcom case. Threatening to block people for raising related issues you don't like is ridiculous aggression. Block me for that, I'll block you back, and then we'll all be blocked. Knock it off - this is schoolboy bullying WP:BATTLE tactics at their lowest..--Scott Mac 17:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Can you make your point without cursing and name-calling? Jehochman Talk 17:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Gents, please. I think you've all misunderstood each other and, of not, should resolve this on your own talk pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Proposed resolutions
  1. Short blocks to those disputants who continue to battle after being warned by any uninvolved administrator.
  2. Overturn sanction on DC, and instead issue a warning not to use dubious primary sources in WP:BLP articles.
  • I support these both. Jehochman Talk 17:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I support the blocks, but a warning is just too lenient. I'm going to suggest a medium term (maybe a couple of months) ban on editing BLPs related to scientology and on adding material related to scientology to other BLPs and maybe a mutual interaction ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Scott Mac's evidence demonstrates the problem cuts both ways. This discussion is illuminative. I suggest both Cirt and DC are topic-banned from BLPs within the topic area for two months. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose overturning the sanction on DC - this discussion has clearly and unambiguously demonstrated the wisdom of its original imposition, whether the decision was as uninvolved as ideal or not. I believe that we don't need a new sanction to block disruptive editors. I support launching a User RFC on Cirt and Scientology edits to determine if there's good evidence for a real problem or not - this discussion here is generating far too much heat and little light to be of rational value in determining that, and it's not the right venue in any case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    This is within an area of conflict in which discretionary sanctions apply. The correct place to discuss Cirt's behaviour within the area of conflict is here, not in yet another forum. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose overturning the sanction on DC - We have not sufficiently discussed other editors to hand out further sanction. A ban of Cirt was exactly what the Wikipedia Review it seems was hoping to accomplish with these games. It appears that we have a lot of personality conflicts and people need to get back to writing content rather than biting each other. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    Are you purporting to be an "uninvolved administrator"? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    In that I do not / have not edited pages on Scientology and you? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    I just wanted to clarify - because you've made "above the line" statements in the original AE and on the appeal, and you appear to have quite clear views, I am not sure whether you consider yourself involved or uninvolved. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    Ah yes was not aware of the significance of the line :-) A number of people including Future posted above and below. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm going to have to argue for shortening this one. According to WP:ARBSCI, "If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year." I'm not seeing anything in that decision to authorise an indef topic ban as imposted. That said, I find DC's behaviour worthy of the sanction authorised. Courcelles 20:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The consensus appears to be that DC's topic ban is upheld. Per WP:ARBSCI, this being the first infraction, the ban length is three months, per Courcelles. As for Cirt, this thread is an appeal of a sanction. It is not going to impose a sanction on Cirt, without prejudice to somebody starting a separate thread where evidence of misbehavior by Cirt may be put forward and Cirt given a chance to respond. Finally, if editors involved in this dispute decide to carry on in other venues, they are risking a possible block for WP:BATTLE. If the next administrator, who has not commented here yet, would be so kind as to close the thread, that would be appreciated. Jehochman Talk 21:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There is precedent and mandate for imposing restrictions on Cirt if necessary. Per Scott's summary, they seem necessary to me. Topic ban both of them for the same length of time. Note: I don't think this is closable yet, as there is open business. ++Lar: t/c 21:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that whatever sanction is imposed on one should be the same for the other, but I think a ban on editing scientology-related BLPs and adding scientology-related information to other BLPs better gets to the crux of the disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a more precise BLP ban is better, I could go either way, as long as it's on both folk at the least, and not just DC. ++Lar: t/c 23:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm with HJ Mitchell on this one. All sanctions in this case should be bilateral, and include a mutual interaction ban. That would stop all of the silliness we have seen. Perhaps a community-based restriction discussion at WP:AN would be an appropriate venue, if this isn't it? --Jayron32 22:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC) --- This editor is highly involved and is not allowed to post here. Jehochman Talk 22:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Involved or not, Jayron raises some good points, but I don't think moving back to AN is the right thing to do. ++Lar: t/c 23:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
My bad, this is Jayron32, not Jayen466. I confused the two. Jayron is uninvolved as far as I know. Many apologies! Jehochman Talk 01:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Agree with both Lar and HJ. It is well-established that AE can consider the actions of all relevant parties, including the filer of the AE. There is no reason not to extend that principle to appeals. Discretionary sanctions don't even need to arise from AEs to begin with - they can be imposed at any administrator's discretion. Given that Cirt is an admin, and the clear evidence that he/she attempted to procure a favourable result at the AE by improper canvassing, we need to be all the more careful not to create an impression of flick-passing this to other venues.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(undent) It seems like we have a group of people using Wikipedia Review to solicit support for criticizing Crit. Here we find User:Lar and User:Jayen466 for example. [100] Measures may need to be expanded a bit beyond these two to address off site attacks. BTW is Wikipedia Review counted as WP:CANVASSING? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm not seeing Lar engage in Cirt-related discussion, let alone lobbying, in that discussion. He seems to have been talking about something else. Fut.Perf. 22:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
True but the thread is labeled "Cirt revisited" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I am really uneasy about this group of editors showing up here in the uninvolved section lobbying for new sanctions in an appeal. Cirt hasn't been presented with evidence of wrongdoing, and hasn't been given a chance to respond. This is irregular and improper, and if it continues, I will ask ArbCom to scrutinize the behavior of all concerned. Jehochman Talk 22:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes Cirt has. And I'm very happy for you report me to arbcom for whatever imaginary things you've already threatened to block me for. Beware the boomerang though. I don't see your reaction here as indicating disinterest or neutrality.--Scott Mac 22:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't think we need Arbcom. If there is a need for more systematic scrutiny regarding Cirt, a User RfC would be the obvious choice, and if that results in serious concerns, sanctioning can still happen under the ARBSCI rules. Fut.Perf. 22:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • In fairness to Cirt, if somebody thinks there is a problem, please put together the evidence and start a thread. This thread is very noisy and disorganized. It is not proper to sanction an editor who has generated lots of high quality content without giving them a fair chance to respond to concerns. Jehochman Talk 22:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Per the evidence above, I strongly support the view that Cirt's long term bias in this area merits at least as long a BLP topic ban as DC's one violation. Violating BLP to prove a point as DC did is poor, but the point is itself not a bad one.--Scott Mac 22:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Looking at Wikipedia review it appears that it is only possible do determine who some of the people commenting are. We do however have previously involved by User:Jayen466 and User: Delicious carbuncle while User:Lar commented on the threat but not really about Cirt. Is there anyway to determine if others here are also involved with what appears to be a coordinated effort over there?
  • Also Scott Mac appears involved [101] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Involved in what? The only thing I'm ever involved with these days is concerns about BLP. I've presented evidence of Cirt's problematic attitude to BLP editing here. It is probably best to defend Cirt by rebutting the charge, rather than hunting for conspiracies. Nice attempt to deflect, but it doesn't wash.--Scott Mac 23:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
      • You have been involved with editing the page that this whole thing is about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
        • So?--Scott Mac 23:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Precisely. ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
        • @Doc James: If we're going to start flinging tar with a broad brush (to mix metaphors) I think it's possible your own actions need further scrutiny, actually. That said, I think trying to claim I'm involved because I commented on a person who commented on Cirt is a bit of a stretch. ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
          • @Lar yes I have acknowledged that above. Your not really involved. I only brought this up as if we are going to address canvassing a few more people may be involved. We all really need to get back to editing though and I do not think this is place to deal with it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Assuming it's not to late to say so, I think the 2 resolutions above are quite reasonable. If the topic and/or interaction ban is intended to quell the drama, I also support applying it to both parties (applying to one or another seems unlikely to have much of a quelling effect). --SB_Johnny | talk 23:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi. This is an appeal by DC. It's pretty clear that the restriction needs to be reduced to 3 months to accord with WP:ARBSCI. Other than that, if people feel other editors need sanctioning, please start a thread, and include diffs. It is not fair to sanction somebody without showing them the evidence and giving them a chance to respond. Handwaving statements like he's just as bad don't make the cut. Also, anybody filing a complaint should disclose any history they have with the other editor(s). Thank you. Jehochman Talk 01:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I don't agree with that. AE has a wide mandate, and if the original case had an incorrect outcome (Cirt didn't get any sanctions) the appeal process can fix that. Don't insist on needless paperwork. Also, you raised the "Cirt hasn't seen the evidence/hasn't had a chance to respond" already and it was rebutted. ++Lar: t/c 01:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Where is the evidence against Cirt? Where is Cirt's response. Please don't try to steamroll somebody like this. It is not fair and I will not stand for it. Jehochman Talk 01:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The relevant remedy states that "Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated" (emphasis mine). Was such a warning (with the link, explicitly stating that a topic ban was contemplated, and outlining the disruptive behavior) given to either Cirt or DC? If so, can someone provide diffs? T. Canens (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
    • D.c. was warned by Jayron here [102] and by multiple people, including myself, in the course of the preceding ANI discussions. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, not even when it comes to Arbcom enforcement. Fut.Perf. 06:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
      • That warning neither stated that a topic ban was contemplated (it only says that the user may be blocked), nor linked to the specific remedy authorizing a topic ban (but only a general link to WP:ARBSCI), nor outlined the objectionable conduct (indeed, it deliberately avoided the question whether the edits mentioned are objectionable). It does not satisfy the requirement in the remedy. This remedy's warning provision is much more explicit than the usual discretionary sanctions provisions, and the sanction authorized (only topic bans) is also much more limited.They generally require only that "[p]rior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions" (from WP:DSN; similar wording can be found in WP:ARBAA2, WP:ARB911, WP:ARBCC, and so on), some may add that the warning needs to be given by an uninvolved administrator; all of these, moreover, authorize blocks, revert restrictions, as well as any other measure the enforcing administrator deems necessary. In this case, however, the applicable remedy provides for a single sanction, and requires a very specific warning: it must link to the section authorizing the topic ban, indicate that a topic ban is being contemplated, and describe the conduct found objectionable. Our authority to enforce an arbcom decision comes only from the delegation of authority contained in that decision, and we are powerless to depart from its terms when taking action under its authority. Further, individual administrators do not have the authority, independent of arbcom, to impose topic bans; that power lies with the community. Unless prior warnings in compliance with the requirements in the remedy were given, I am of the view that the sanction at issue must be lifted, because no administrator was authorized to impose it in the first place. T. Canens (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
        • D.c. had previously explicitly acknowledged he knew about the sanctions rule, and he knew is own conduct was being critically reviewed under it. The rest (about specific links to specific sections needing to be posted in specific places, no less!) ist bureaucratic red tape. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is policy, and as such binding even to Arbcom and our way of interpreting and enforcing Arbcom decisions. Fut.Perf. 07:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
          • That section deals with interpretation of policies, guidelines and similar material - it is understood that they are generally descriptive, not prescriptive, thus it is inappropriate to seize on the letter of the wording because it is the spirit that reflects the community consensus they document. An arbcom remedy is neither a policy nor a guideline; it does not "document already existing community consensus", and indeed may not be amended by community consensus (the community does not have the power to overturn an arbcom ban, for example), and nor do we have the power to remove arbcom's instruction creep, if it is indeed instruction creep. We simply cannot use the power given to us by arbcom to enforce its decisions to place bans that are inconsistent with their plain language. T. Canens (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I would favor revoking the existing sanction against DC. There is another question regarding the possibility of placing a sanction against both Cirt and DC. Personally, without commenting on the reasonableness of such an idea, I really do not think that this is necessarily the best place to have such a discussion. The amount of material which could be presented and potentially responded to in such a discussion is, to my eyes anyway, probably way too long to be able to be included in this page without making the page unduly long for some editors. I would myself at least favor creating a separate subpage for such a discussion. I also think that, if such is to be done, starting the discussion over with the presentation of the evidence against the various parties would be in everyone's best interests. But this section is really getting unduly long as is, and would doubtless get even longer if we were to fairly discuss application of sanctions against Cirt. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Result of appeal by Delicious carbuncle, section 2[edit]

Timotheus, could you leave Delicious carbuncle a note linking to Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Discretionary_topic_ban and ask them to confirm that they understand what the concerns are. Additionally, could you strike the sanction on DC logged at WP:ARBSCI, because it clearly failed to follow the prescribed process? I agree with you completely that arbitration remedies must be applied according to process. Improvisation is not allowed (unlike most situations on Wikipedia).

As for Cirt, if an uninvolved administrator wants to compile evidence of problematic editing and leave a warning, that would be fine. I will specifically caution those who were canvassed by Cirt, those who've been discussing this on Wikipedia Review, and those who've been advocating for out-of-process sanctions, to please recuse from any administrative action. Any editor is welcome to file an arbitration enforcement request if they feel that an arbitration remedy has been violated. Jehochman Talk 11:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Not acceptable. See above. Scott Mac references it when he said "per the evidence above". Review it please. We need the same thing applied to Cirt as DC. Or more. And stop casting aspersions on participants. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, the arbitration remedy is very clear that sanctions cannot be applied until after the mandatory warning. As I've said, any uninvolved administrator is welcome to copy the evidence and issue the warning. I'm not going to do any of this myself because I don't want to cause more controversy. Jehochman Talk 15:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
82kbs later, I'm not sure I'm totally clear on whats going on here, but I've been able to pull the following issues out:
  • Delicious carbuncle's sanction may have been given without a warning.
  • Delicious carbuncle's off-wiki comments are being used as evidence of bias
  • There is a concern that Cirt's editing patterns in the Scientology area are insufficiently neutral to be allowed to edit in BLPs because of the heightened stakes in BLPs
  • Ditto for Delicious Carbuncle
    • Apparently there is a suggestion that ArbCom ban both Cirt and Delicious Carbuncle from Scientology related BLPS, which seems like an odd thing to use AE for, as we're short on Arbitrators.
  • Several administrators (who I respect a great deal for their long standing dedication to Wikipedia and her* goals) have interacted... acrimoniously with each other.
Separately, statements such as "I am out to expose X as the Y that I believe X to be" suggest a battlefield mentality wholly inappropriate for a collaborative environment. Anyway, are we talking about a pattern of edits across multiple BLPs, or are we talking about the Jamie Sorrentini article exclusively? What, if anything have I missed?--Tznkai (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)*her, as in the Good Ship Wikipedia

Please confirm actual result of appeal I note that Tim hasn't removed DC's sanction as requested by Jehochman, and Future Perfect has removed an AE filing by DC on the grounds that the sanction is still in place. Without commenting on the merits or otherwise of DCs attempted filing, can we please clarify which of three outcomes discussed above applies

  1. The appeal has failed
  2. The appeal has succeeded and the sanction has been modified from 'in perpetuity' to 'for 3 months'
  3. The sanction has been overturned due to a failure of process and should be removed from the list.

Thanks --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's option three. The process on this stinks all the way around. Overturn without prejudice against an uninvolved admin giving a proper, ARBSCI compliant warning. DC's conduct was bad, but we can't cite NOTBURO and sidestep clear requirements from ArbCom- that makes individual admins too powerful. Courcelles 12:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Noting that I still stand by my assessment with respect to the objective justification of the sanction, I cannot of course stand in the way of my colleagues if they value the formalities of the warning procedures higher than I did. Fut.Perf. 12:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I will strike the sanction from the record on grounds of technical non compliance with procedure. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)