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


The Last Angry Man[edit]

The Last Angry Man (talk · contribs) topic-banned for three months. Igny (talk · contribs) topic-banned for six months.
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 The Last Angry Man[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Igny (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
The Last Angry Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:DIGWUREN I would recommend indefinite topic ban from articles related to Soviet Union or Communism.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  • Rude remarks
  1. your a joker with a threat to continue edit war circumventing 1RR.
  2. heap of crap
  3. trash
  4. Just read the whole thing here.
  • Edit warring over POV tags

6 Oct 3 Oct 30 Sep Here is my warning not to revert without discussion. 25 Sep 24 Sep Here is my invitation to a discussion over the POV tag.

  • MKuCR. See here for a draft of an AE request over editing against consensus,

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Placed on DIGWUREN notice on 12 September by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on 11 September by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
  3. Warned on 11 September by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
  4. Warned on 8 September by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This is not a content dispute, so I will not discuss the content issues which brought me here. This is a request to stop TLAM's persistent disruptive behaviour. This might not be the whole picture, more could become apparent after someone reviews TLAM's edit history, and other involved editors start adding their remarks.

I will add more comments here after the WP:EEML team rushes here for TLAM's defence and mud slinging.

Re -Mkativerata. Did you read the number 4 diff, or not? Was it mild to you? Was it not directed at other editors?? I am not taking my EEML comment back, but to clarify, I meant their tactics rather than the members of the mailing list, see here or some clarification. Needless to say, my intentional reference to their tactics saved a ton of time for you because you are not reading kilobytes of mud thrown at me by MArtin and others. (Igny (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

See here.

Discussion concerning The Last Angry Man[edit]

Statement by The Last Angry Man[edit]

Igny`s reverts

  • Communist terrorism

[1] Reverts though there was no discussion on the talk page and the tag was removed within policy and does not use the talk page, He is asked by user User:Mamalujo why[2] he did the revert he posts a threat of AE enforcement on the article talk page, but does not discuss why he reverted the tag in.[3] [4][5] His last revert on Communist terrorism [6] And again does not go to talk. My last removal of the POV was based on Paul Siebert stating he believed it could be removed which meant there was a consensus for it to be removed, Igny then decided to be WP:POINTY and tagged a section. When I said he was a joker I meant he was messing about it was not meant as an attack. Since my unblock I have removed the POV tag on this article twice, the first time as there were no section on talk per policy and the second as there is now a consensus for it to be removed as Paul Siebert has said he believes it can be removed. This is not edit warring over a tag as has been claimed.

  • Holodomor

Reachs 3R in one day. [7][8][9]

  • Occupation of the Baltic states

[15] [16] [17][18] [19][20] [21][22]

  • Douglas Pike

[23] [24] [25]

  • Sockpuppetry allegations,again

Not surprising really, why not throw in the kitchen sink whilst at it. Am ?I the only person on wiki who has said piss? I very much doubt that,[26] it is a well used English expression. Lets try again is also a well used English expression, take me out and hang me till dead why not. I was unblocked unconditionally by the Committee[27] and have followed policy to the best that I can, I have used talk pages extensively, and have always discussed any reverts I have made on contentious edits. I have not edited against consensus as Igny claims on MKUCR article, there was a clear consensus that the source should not be grossly misrepresented as it had been.

Reply to Mathsci, moved from his section:
When you are researching material for a book it is not surprising at all that I would discover the CT article. I have seen Paul Siebert use @, does that make him a sock? I edited from an IP and was asked to create an account, not really that odd is it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning The Last Angry Man[edit]

Comment by Vecrumba[edit]

The provocative and preemptive personal attack of WP:EEML WITCH! screaming rather underscores the source of WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude here. PЄTЄRS J VTALK 02:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Tammsalu[edit]

I concur with Vecrumba that mention of "the EEML team rushing here" is a bad faithed personal attack. I note that Igny was previously blocked for "disruptive comments on case workshop, including protracted assumption of bad faith and unfounded suggestions of backstage collusion"[28], i.e. making unfounded accusations of collusion, and it seems he hasn't learned and continues do so on his talk page[29] as well as here. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose Fut.Perf's remarks demonstrates one the benefits of adminship, being that one is free to make any kind of assumption what so ever. However given that the range of topics TLAM currently edits was actually suggested to him by Biophys here, Fut.Perf's comment about associating TLAM with "the same ecological niche of a previously banned user in the biotope of our POV-pushing universe" seems off the mark. In my experience Brits in general tend to be less pro-Soviet and somewhat intolerant of Russian patriotic nationalism than most. The plain fact of the matter is that ArbCom did lift TLAM's ban on appeal, without knowing the full circumstances of the appeal I'm not sure these kinds of sock-puppetry accusations are germane to Arbitration enforcement. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Sigh, is this latest unwarranted personal attack[30] by Igny upon my person relevant to his complaint about TLAM? IMO this exemplifies unremitting battleground behaviour. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Lvivske[edit]

I don't have a stake or opinion on the behavior shown in the articles mentioned by Mkativerata, but in fairly recent edits I have noticed battleground behavior from Igny on the Holodomor article (1, 2, 3, where he was edit warring hard the lead up to the article being put on indefinite lock (due to the massive warring going on). TLAM was also in there, but I found he was enforcing the talk page consensus that Igny was opposed to, and his edits were far fewer in the lock countdown. There's a particularly egregious moment on the 25th (1 2), where TLAM removes a June-inserted POV tag saying there's no talk page discussion, Igny reverts, makes some of his own edits, and then says its okay now to remove it. Pure WP:OWN mentality or what? I understand that these topics tend to be polarized between two schools of thought and appear to between two cohesive, chummy groups, but the battleground mentality has got to stop or all these articles will just keep getting locked in limbo.--Львівське (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by tangently involved Russavia[edit]

Ummm, I have a HUGE problem with this. TLAM is clearly a sockpuppet of the banned user Marknutley. That the Arbcom in its infinite STUPIDITY wisdom unleashed onto the community one of the most disruptive editors there is, is despicable, and Igny's edits should be seen within the context of undoing edits by a banned sockpuppet. I will present evidence of the sockpuppetry to an admin OFFWIKI, as it is not a good idea to give such disruptive users an insight into their editing traits which give them away. Any admins out there with the cajones to do what is right here? --Russavia Let's dialogue 05:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, ANY admin is within their power to ban a sockpuppet. This user is under no special Arbcom protection, and so they shouldn't be. I have word from the committee itself that their unbanning was a once-off good faith unbanning. I also have word from the committee that anything further in relation to this user is handled by the community, not the committee, although the Committee would appreciate a heads-up. I will inform the Committee of this discussion, just as I will also inform a couple of other users who like to keep the Committee in-check of this discussion. As I said, I will provide to an admin who is willing to look at the evidence said evidence via email, as I am not going to let this sockpuppet know how he has, yet again, been caught out. In the words of Marknutley and his sockpuppets, let's "try again"[31][32]. Or do we simply allow sockpuppets like this to "take the piss" out of the community?[33][34] Russavia Let's dialogue 08:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
BTW, if anyone is wondering what I am talking about refer to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Marknutley. Does anyone see anything unusual in that category? Little Big Man (talk · contribs)? And now The Last Angry Man (talk · contribs)? Both are movie titles BTW. It is wrong that the ArbCom overrides the community in such cases, because there are editors in the community who are familiar with the modus operandi and behavioural patterns of sockpuppets. HelloAnnyong (talk · contribs) is more than familiar with these sockpuppets. It is no coincidence that TLAM became active only after Veryborednow (talk · contribs) was banned as a sockpuppet of Marknutley (talk · contribs). As to anything that TLAM has to say, the byline of File:Little Big Man 1970 film poster.jpg is quite ironic. That TLAM is behaving just like Nutley and his sockpuppets is wrong; it is wrong that the Arbcom allowed him to return to editing. We can right this wrong right now, without blame or without shame. Russavia Let's dialogue 11:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
You don`t think your reaching a little here? Film titles? And why not mention that Nutley was blocked from his computer, at his IP address and his service provider long after I registered and began to edit? The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much Biophys for the clear evidence that you continue to stalk my edits after all these years. After your harrassment and hounding of the last couple of weeks, this is surely going to make for a damning request for either the Committee or right here at AE. Unless of course you are able to tell us how you managed to find an edit that I made to an article which you have never edited, and for which the PROD notice was not yet placed on the editors talk page. Stalking my contributions is obviously the only way, correct? Anyway, thanks for confirming what I have always known. Russavia Let's dialogue 16:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

comment by uninvolved Collect[edit]

Comments accusing a person of being a sock and therefore blockable do not belong here. The content disputes are noted - and that is what they are. Using this board to block or ban a person where they have shown no incivility or other reasons for the block or ban is improper. DIGWUREN is likely equally applicable to Igny et al, b the way, using the identical arguments. Let's stick to proper use of this board. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

@MS: Do you really think that the similarities are sufficient to make this an SPI case? I can find "similarities" between Igny, TFD and Paul Siebert in wording and positions on several articles - but simply disagreeing with a person is an extraordinarily bad reason to pursue anything without some actual "evidence" (such as intersection of edits n article and user pages, etc.) As to using "British editing mannerisms" as an argument - I do not see sufficient similarities to label TLAM as MN by a long shot. I suspect at least three editors on Wikipedia are based in the UK as a minimum, including Jimbo Wales who currently uses 'British editing mannerisms." YMMV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Mathsci[edit]

Please note these talk page comments of TLAM from 2 October.[35] Other edits of TLAM have been discussed with FPaS and others on WP:ANI here. In response to the comments of FPaS, although there are certain minor differences in writing style, generally TLAM's British editing mannerisms (including his "blokish" English) and choice of subject are close to those of Marknutley. For the stubs both editors have created on uncontroversial books, there seem to be very few differences in the style/format of the first drafts of Council of Dads and The Castle in the Attic (MN) and the first draft of Annie Dunne (TLAM). Also the format of edit summaries directed towards individual editors (@ PS, @ TFD, etc) are not common, but shared by both accounts. Beyond these technical details, a newbie making their first edits on wikipedia at talk:communist terrorism, first with a London IP and then with their newly created account, is odd. Put simply: Hersfold was probably correct in his initial assessment. But note the use of the word "probably" ... Mathsci (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have filed quite a few sockpuppet reports concerning editors with London-based IPs, mostly accurate. This case is more complicated than the others because of a difference in ISP. There is nothing at all certain here, just slightly odd circumstances. Without other editors including FPaS having expressed doubts, I would not have made these extremely tentative comments. Mathsci (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Biophys[edit]

Nominating for deletion [36] an article created by TLAM [37] looks pointy to me. Biophys (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

@Russavia. What?. No, I did not. Sure thing, you can do whatever you want. I do not care.Biophys (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
With regard to TLAM, I recently talked with him. After having this conversation, I had an impression that he is not Marknutley who was more experienced than him. Most important, TLAM tried to do right thing. But that was "mission impossible". Why? Obviously, there are some editors in this area who revert others on every possible occasion [38] and are constantly involved in contentious disputes. No one can edit difficult articles in this area, as exemplified by the fate of Holodomor and "Mass killings". We are going to have more such articles.Biophys (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Comments by Paul Siebert[edit]

I have one general comment and few comments on the Mkativerata's post.

  1. Both parties, TLAM and Igny, currently are the participants of the mediation case that have recently been open. In connection to that, and taking into account that any sanctions are supposed to be preventive, not punitive, one should keep in mind that the very nature of the mediation procedure provides little opportunity for edit warring and disruptive behaviour. Therefore, in my opinion, the prospective topic ban should not include the discussion on the MedCab page, and both parties should be allowed to participate in it without restrictions.
  2. Re Mkativerata's observations about Igny, I cannot fully agree with them. Whereas I agree that the explicit reference to EEML is offencive towards the overwhelming majority of exEEML members (most of whom abandoned their old tactics), I disagree with others two Mkativerata's observations. Firstly, according to WP:CANVASS, the Igny's notification is an example of appropriate behaviour ("On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed.") I did not ask Igny to keep me informed, but I has been a participant of the previous discussions, and I do have some expertise. I would say, Igly's notification is redundant (I am watchlisting all relevant pages), but it is not inappropriate by no means; therefore, the example #2 from the Mkativerata's list should not be considered as an evidence against Igny.
    Secondly, the situation with "Communist terrorism" is the example of technical violation: the first Igny's edit was just restoration of the POV tag, which has been unilaterally removed despite the discussion about the article's POV issues has not ended (I personally saw no urgent need in this Igny's step, however, I see no violation here). The second edit was the addition of the undue tag. Igny explained his actions on the talk page (see, e.g., [39]), so this violation seems to be purely technical.
    Thirdly, the "Occupation of the Baltic states" story is also an example of Igny's technical mistake: he left no edit summary, but he explained in details his position on the talk page[40]. I doubt that is an indication of disruptive behaviour. In addition, this case was a (somewhat inadequate) reaction of Igny on the situation when two users made several attempts to unilaterally remove the POV tag from the article having multiple POV issues (under the artificial pretext that one of those issues belongs to the daughter article). Therefore, in that situation it would be hardly correct to apply the sanctions on Igny only.

In summary, the only indication of Igny's incivility is his reference to the EEML case. In addition, I found his decision to file this AE request premature, especially in a situation when both users are the participants on of the mediation.
With regard to TLAM, I am not sure I am in position to discuss any sanctions against him, because I am also a participant of the same mediation case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

PS The following TLAM's statement: "there is now a consensus for it to be removed as Paul Siebert has said he believes it can be removed." is a misinterpretation of my position. I explained my opinion specifically to TLAM: ("PS. re your last revert, let me explain that I do not think that the POV issues have been fully resolved. I just hope that we are probably approaching a consensus, so there is no need in immediate restoration of the tag. That position is just a demonstration of my good faith, and I expect some steps to be taken by you and others in a responce.--Paul Siebert (talk)" ). Therefore, I point the admin's attention at the fact that the reference to my opinion is unjustified in this particular case. I especially object to the attempt to use my post, which was made in a desire to create less aggressive atmosphere, in combative purposes.
Moreover, it is interesting to see that TLAM accepts my opinion when it is more or less in accordance with his views, and prefers to totally ignore it when I disagree with him.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Greyhood[edit]
  • I should second some of the opinions voiced by Paul Siebert above.
    • Igny knew that Paul Siebert also considered a possibility of AE request against TLAM: Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Proposed_AE_request. That's why notifying Paul about the discussion here was not canvassing, but just a matter of common courtesy.
    • As the above point shows, one should better explore the history of recent discussions between the involved editors to fully understand their actions. Igny indeed did explain his reverts on the talk pages even if he had't done that in edit summaries.
    • I support the proposal of allowing all the editors participating in the ongoing mediation to continue participate there, if it is technically possible and if there are no permanent sanctions. GreyHood Talk 19:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning The Last Angry Man[edit]

I propose: 6 month topic ban for Igny; 2 month topic ban for TLAM. Reasons are:
  • Igny -- as far as I'm concerned, Igny is deeply engaged in the very definition of battleground behaviour that discretionary sanctions are designed to stamp out. For example:
  • gratuitous battleground attack in this AE ("after the WP:EEML team rushes here for TLAM's defence and mud slinging")
  • attempts to solicit participation in the AE from perceived friendly editors ([41])
  • Multiple recent examples of edit and tag-warring. See the page histories of Communist terrorism and Occupation of the Baltic states for behaviour such as on-sight reversions without even edit summaries.
  • TLAM -- the so-called rude remarks are mild on the scale. Only the first of the four -- "joker" -- is directed at another editor. However, in light of Arbcom's strong suggestion to stay away from articles about Communism, I don't think that uncivil behaviour like that, with a bit of tag-warring on Communist terrorism thrown in, on a contentious article about communism, can go unsanctioned.
Given that I'm proposing a couple of hefty sanctions, and there is no hurry, I'll await comments from uninvolved admins and as few as possible from the peanut gallery, please. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I would go for 3 months for TLAM, as I see no reason to depart from the usual length applied for a first topic ban. I otherwise concur.

      Russiavia, whatever evidence you have should be sent to the arbitration committee, since it's their decision to unblock TLAM in the first place. It is questionable at best whether individual admins can overturn an arbcom unblock. T. Canens (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

      • In considering what to do here, I am finding it hard to wrap my brain around the assumption that TLAM might somehow not be a sock of Marknutley. If ever a new account took over precisely the same ecological niche of a previously banned user in the biotope of our POV-pushing universe, it's this account. Fut.Perf. 09:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
        Russavia, if you have BEANS-style evidence, please let me know. Fut.Perf. 11:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
        Fut.Perf.: Agree on that last. NW (Talk) 14:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
        I don't disagree. But arbcom decided to unblock TLAM...presumably after reviewing all the evidence that was available. In the absence of exceptionally damning new evidence, I don't think it is appropriate for us to block TLAM as a sockpuppet.

        That said, I should make it clear that I absolutely disagree with the procedure employed by arbcom here, if Russiavia is correct that they said "anything further in relation to this user is handled by the community, not the committee". This puts us in the untenable position of having to review the matter without knowing the reasoning behind the unblock. We do not know what evidence the Committee reviewed, other than that technical evidence is involved since a checkuser was ran on the SPI that led to the block. We don't know the strength of the technical evidence, we don't know what behavioral evidence the committee looked at and found insufficient. We have no basis upon which to decide whether whatever new evidence that is uncovered after the unblock would have swayed the Committee's decision. It is entirely irresponsible for the Committee to unblock what a number of experienced admins, including a checkuser and former arbitrator and an experienced SPI clerk, found to be a sockpuppet, with only a cursory and conclusory statement, and then to disclaim any responsibility for the account. T. Canens (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Good lord you people are useless, an experienced SPI clerk actually said I don't see a direct connection with Marknutley If you wish to know what the committee looked at ask me. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
And you conveniently ignores the case right below where you were blocked...right. T. Canens (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
As an admin I assume then WP:AGF does not apply? I was responding to your obvious error above. I also stated I would explain the committees decision based on the evidence if you asked. The other SPI block was based on two things, I use chrome as did Ten Ton Tunic, I live in the same county as Nutley. That was it. Now should you like a full explanation post on my talk page and I will happily write it up for you. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to keep this open but I think we've heard all we need to hear. Any more discussion here and I'd have been tempted to hand out sanctions to some of the third parties in this AE: Biophys in particular is walking a thin line. All third parties to DIGWUREN requests are on notice. I've read all the contributions from each "side" here. Regarding Paul Siebert's contributions, one of the very few helpful ones, I mostly disagree: This is not constructive participation in a discussion, it is asserting ones own view of the "consensus" and reverting accordingly, which is a tried and tested battleground edit-warring tactic. So, the topic bans are applied as proposed, subject to T.Canens' suggestion: 6 months for Igny, 3 months for TLAM. No exception for MEDCAB. Sockpuppetry allegations can be pursued elsewhere; for now, in light of Arbcom's unblock and the absence of damning new evidence, this is not the place. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]

No action taken. T. Canens (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
ZScarpia   23:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 23:39, 26 September 2011 No More Mr Nice Guy made a gratuitous personal attack against user Talknic (talk · contribs) on the talk page of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War article, writing: "How about you desist wasting everyone's time with your silly trolling?" He twice reinstated the comment after it was struck-out by me. The comment runs counter to the WP:ARBPIA#Decorum principle that editors avoid "unseemly conduct" such as personal attacks and incivility. The ARBPIA remedies allow any uninvolved administrator to impose discretionary sanctions on any editors working in the ARBIA if, despite being warned, they repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the expected standards of behaviour in Wikipedia.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Notified on 14:12, 13 April 2009 by PhilKnight (talk · contribs)
  2. Notified on 21:41, 26 May 2010 by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The ARBPIA rulings say: "Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited." I do not know any editor who is as relentlessly snide and sarcastic as No More Mr Nice Guy, who appears to be making a determined and succesful effort to live up to his user name. On 26 September, No More Mr Nice Guy left a baseless and insulting remark about user Talknic (talk · contribs) on the talk page of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War article, writing: "How about you desist wasting everyone's time with your silly trolling?" The Wikipedia talk page guidelines allow the removal of personal attacks (and also, as I think the comment fits the description, ironically, trolling: "A troll deliberately exploits tendencies of human nature or of an online community to upset people."). Accordingly, I struck out No More Mr Nice Guy's comment. He then re-instated it, I struck it out and then No More Mr Nice Guy re-instated it again. The following diffs show the sequence of events:

  1. 23:39, 26 September 2011 No More Mr Nice Guy made a gratuitous personal attack against user Talknic.
  2. 13:36, 2 October 2011 Feeling that the comment crossed well beyond the line of acceptability, I struck it out.
  3. 18:54, 2 October 2011 No More Mr Nice Guy reverted the striking out.
  4. 19:50, 2 October 2011 I reverted No More Mr Nice Guy's revert and stated that if the offending comment was re-instated again, I would take it to one of the noticeboards.
  5. 20:04, 2 October 2011 No More Mr Nice Guy reinstated his comment, leaving the edit summary, "Go ahead."

On making the first reinstatement, No More Mr Nice Guy left the edit summary, "I believe I told you already not to edit my talk page comments." This is a reference to an incident in November 2010 when I struck out an off-topic (irrelevant to the topic) and insulting comment of No More Mr Nice Guy's which he again insisted on reinstating. This diff shows the sequence of edits made at the Human rights in Israel talk page. This link points to the discussion that was had about it on No More Mr Nice Guy's user talk page.     ←   ZScarpia   23:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Response to No More Mr Nice Guy's comment of 00:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC):

  • No More Mr Nice Guy says that his comment wasn't a personal attack. The section of the WP:NPA policy which addresses what a personal attack is says that it includes "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". It goes on to say that "serious accusations require serious evidence". No More Mr Nice Guy told Talknic (talk · contribs): "How about you desist wasting everyone's time with your silly trolling?" It looked to me as though Talknic was engaging on the talk page in a constructive, reasoned and polite way and that No More Mr Nice Guy had no grounds at all to accuse him of "silly trolling" or of "wasting everyone's time".
  • No More Mr Nice Guy uses the defence that, "I'm not the first person who described talknic's behavior as trolling." It did look to me as though Talknic was being harassed from several different directions, but I didn't notice any other comments as baseless or as unacceptable as No More Mr Nice Guy's.
  • No More Mr Nice Guy quotes the Wikipedia:Talk guideline about editing the comments of others and seems to suggest that I breached it by again striking out his comment after he objected. The guideline - and it is a guideline - does not, though, say "stop if there is any objection", but "normally stop if there is any objection". From my point of view, I was giving No More Mr Nice Guy two chances to avoid being reported for making a personal attack, neither of which he accepted or took other steps to avoid, but merely insisted on reinstating his worthless and abusive comment.
  • No More Mr Nice Guy wrote: "ZScaripa removed my comment without discussing the issue with me beforehand (or afterwards) and removed it again after I objected. He came directly to this board in what seems like an attempt to remove someone he perceives as having opposing views to his." As No More Mr Nice Guy's talk page shows, I tried to discuss one of his talk page comments with him once before. That proved to be something of a waste of my time. That being the case and there being nothing in the guidelines obliging me to enter into a discussion before striking out the personal attack, why would I? No More Mr Nice Guy could equally be asked why he didn't open a discussion with me instead of simply reverting me twice. I didn't come straight to this board, as I could have done and perhaps would have done if had been true that I was merely trying to remove someone who has views opposing my own, but gave him several chances to accept the removal, or modification, of his remark. The second time, I warned him that, if the comment was reinstated, I would take it to one of the noticeboards. He reinstated his comment and told me to "go ahead". I've been editing on Wikipedia for almost six years. In that time I've made reports on the AE and AI on two occasions, this being the second (and the first time against No More Mr Nice Guy). If I was in the game of trying to get rid of editors whose views conflicted with mine, there being quite a few I should think, I'd have been a lot busier than that. In fact, what does motivate me in cases such as this is that, if I see a remark being made to another editor which looks way beyond the bounds of acceptability, I feel duty-bound to do something about it.

    ←   ZScarpia   02:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC) (edited: 10:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC))

@No More Mr Nice Guy, 04:12, 3 October 2011: I don't make threats, therefore I carefully considered what to say in my edit comment. I decided that, on balance, it was better to give you fair warning that I would resort to one of the noticeboards if your comment was reinstated. Having been told that your remark was offensive, I hoped that you would carefully consider whether to delete or modify it. What constructive purpose does it serve? The section that I commented in may have been half-way up the talk page, but the discussion there is a currently active one.     ←   ZScarpia   11:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@Tznkai, 04:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC): I will change the link given in the Sanction or remedy to be enforced section to one pointing to the Remedies section of the ARBPIA case. The current link is the same one used in the case against Cptnono above, where it didn't raise any objections.     ←   ZScarpia   09:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@Tznkai, 23:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC): Thanks. When you said, "refactoring someone else's comments, especially directed against you, is also problematic," were you speaking in general, or are you thinking that No More Mr Guy's remark was directed at me rather than Talknic? And is a lesson I should be learning from this that instead of striking personal attacks against other users in the ARBPIA area out I should resort straight to the AE noticeboard?     ←   ZScarpia   00:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks again.     ←   ZScarpia   00:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Just for future reference, I want to include a link to the section of of WP:NPA dealing with removal of text: WP:RPA.     ←   ZScarpia   13:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Since, this request hasn't been closed yet, I'd like to reply to comments including the latest.     ←   ZScarpia   18:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]

I do not believe my comment was a personal attack. It hardly even rises to the level of being mildly uncivil, as anyone who has a couple of hours to spare and would like to read the previous discussions on that page and its archives can see. Furthermore, I'm not the first person who described talknic's behavior as trolling.

WP:Talk#Others' comments is pretty clear that "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection". I objected. ZScarpia re-edited my comment.

The same guideline also says "This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial."

In summary, there was no personal attack, ZScaripa removed my comment without discussing the issue with me beforehand (or afterwards) and removed it again after I objected. He came directly to this board in what seems like an attempt to remove someone he perceives as having opposing views to his. I believe WP:BOOMERANG should apply. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

  • If the consensus among uninvolved editors turns out to be that telling someone he's trolling is a personal attack I'll strike out the comment myself. Please excuse me if I don't take the word of an editor who's not only involved up to his eyeballs, but has made such frivolous charges against me in the past. Threatening me in an edit summary that if I don't accept his unacceptable behavior he'll report me can hardly be taken as an attempt to discuss the issue.
  • Here is another editor telling talknic he's trolling on the same talk page. If you bother to read the page you'll see that the accusation is not without merit.
  • Perhaps ZScarpia could let us know what brought him to a page he hasn't edited in six months, and rather than comment on one of the two open RfCs or the merge proposal for example, make a comment in a section mid page and then strike out an almost week old comment of mine. Twice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA - Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks, for instance, stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack.
So once again, there was no personal attack, my comment was removed without cause or discussion and then removed again after I objected, then rather than use DR or WQA as suggested in NPA (if this even qualified as a "recurring attack", which of course it doesn't) ZScarpia came directly here. I could speculate as to why he chose this forum, but I think it's pretty obvious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]

This appears to be another one of those chronic cases of wikilawyering that admins have warned in the past will result in sanctions. An editor's entire talk page contributions appear to be a combination of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and WP:OR, yet the editor who tells him as much is brought up "civility" charges. What a waste of time.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this is not even close to warranting administrator action. Barely even a AGF violation, let alone NPA. I'd suggest solving this between the three of yourselves. Toa Nidhiki05 14:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Decorum is not a remedy. Please link to the actual remedy you wish for an administrator to enforce.--Tznkai (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, as far as I can tell, you all are wrong.
  • Calling someone a troll is an attack on their personal character. Thus is a personal attack. Describing someone as trolling is close enough that it really isn't a useful difference. Compare: "you're an idiot" and "stop your idiocy." It is all disrespectful Any further analysis of this issue would be silly.
  • That having been said, refactoring someone else's comments, especially directed against you, is also problematic. It does little more than inflame opinion, especially when you've been asked to stop. So don't do it.
  • The point of WP:NPA, WP:CIV and most of the conduct policies on Wikipedia is to prevent bickering and promote respect in order to preserve a healthy editing environment. Which is to say, both of you, please try to treat each other better and go write something.
Request for discretionary sanctions  Declined.--Tznkai (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
ZScarpia, I misunderstood and misexplained what happened on the reversion. Let me explain it better. Don't refactor comments, as a general rule. I don't think its within policy, but even if it is, its really bad idea, because it makes the situation worse, not better.--Tznkai (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I basically concur with what Tznkai has said above. While the remark in question was sub-optimal, refactoring it simply made the situation worse, and edit-warring over a strike out on a talk page is, again, never helpful. So it's WP:TROUTs all around, I'd say. There is no need for any sanctions, or other administrative action and this request can, IMO, be closed. Eluchil404 (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


Toddy1 has been notified of the discretionary sanctions under DIGWUREN. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Toddy1[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Toddy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
  • Toddy1 is to be placed under formal notice and warned of possible discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 21:55, 3 October 2011

I think this falls squarely into the category of "making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies". Allegations that diaspora Ukrainians have connections to individuals involved in the Holocaust/Nazi collaboration is unacceptable.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

If this is the wrong way to request a formal warning, I do apologise. I didn't want to seem as if I was admin-fishing, so I came here instead of an admin's talk-page.

  • To Yulia: Regardless of what you believe Toddy1's intentions to be, the wording of the DIGWUREN decision is crystal clear with regards to accusations of Holocaust denial and the like. Note that I am not proposing that he receive any block or ban. Such an action would not be appropriate, as he has not yet received an official warning. My proposal is that he be officially placed on notice so that he will know not to resort to such tactics in the future, lest he be sanctioned. As for the cool-down period, I think that is probably a good idea, though it is up to Toddy himself to take such a break. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
    In addition, I would like to say that your comment here was highly offensive and a gross assumption of bad faith. I consider the insinuation that I am a racist or Nazi sympathiser for the mere fact that I lodged this request a personal attack. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • To Tznkai: As Toddy1 has not received an official warning per DIGWUREN yet, I feel that is all that can be done (How odd! An editor requesting something less than a block on AE?). I stated above that I was unsure as to whether this was the correct way of doing so, but that I felt that it was the least tattletale-ish way.
    I linked to the "Editors warned" section as I felt that it addressed the issue here more directly than the generalised "Discretionary sanctions" section. Plus, one can always look a little bit down the page to see them :) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Toddy1[edit]

Statement by Toddy1[edit]

I had hoped that this this unfair request would have been declined by now. As this has not happened, I need to make a statement.

Events leading to my posting the remarks, the other editor is is complaining about.

  • 1 October 2011. There was what another editor and I perceived to be a racist incident on the article on Ukrainian American. See edit history of Ukrainian American.
    • (Incidentally, I suspect that some of the words used by the editor accused of making racist remarks in edit summaries may have been altered, as some of them are not as I remember them.)
  • 1 October 2011. An editor posted strongly worded remarks[43] on Talk:Ukrainian American, pointing out that an unacceptable racist incident had occurred.
  • 3 October 2011. An administrator posted a warning to the editor who made the strongly worded remarks. This warning can be found at User talk:Yulia Romero#Please moderate your comments.
  • It was at this point that I became aware of the racist incident on 1 October. I was upset and angry, both that the racist incident had occurred and the insensitive wording of the warning given by the administrator. It should be remembered that it was Hitler and the Nazis who alleged that someone who was a Jew could not be a German. Therefore someone who seemed to be saying that someone could not be a Jew and and be Ukrainian very much invited comparison with Hitler and the Nazis. I felt that the admin's message was unacceptable.
  • In this distressed and angry state I posted the message that someone has made a complaint about. I agree that it was not the right message to post, and that it would have been better is someone had deleted it. It should be noted that I did at least have the sense not to post it on Talk:Ukrainian American, but posted it on the talk page of the editor who had made the complaint about racism, and received the warning.
  • The next morning, (08:06, 4 October 2011), I posted a more moderate and reasonable message on Talk:Ukrainian American#Infobox picture.

I note that someone has argued below that the incident on 1 October was not a racist incident. However, this is English language Wikipedia, and the accepted English definition of a racist incident is "any incident that is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person". This definition comes from recommendation 12 of the Macpherson Report of 1999, which was accepted.

The message I posted that is being complained about

You must remember that many Ukrainian nationalists who live in Canada and USA have parents or grand parents who served in the Great Patriotic War on the German side. Some of them were like John Demjanjuk, others served in the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Ukrainian). Please do not offend them when they make anti-semitic remarks - they all club together and may get you banned for not being a racist like they are.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that contrary to the assertion by the complainant, this message does not make generalized accusations about persons of a particular national or ethnic group.

In countries that have an established independence, like England and France, "nationalists" is how people from extreme usually racist parties are described - such as National Front (France) or English Defence League. "Nationalists" is also used to describe sectarian groups such as Provisional Irish Republican Army. In the context of Ukraine in the late 1980s and early 1990s, mainstream politicians who favour independence from the USSR could be described as "nationalists"; these days in domestic Ukrainian politics it refers to people like Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. People who make xenophobic or racist edits to Wikipedia tend to be referred to on Wikipedia as nationalists.

Therefore my remark was not about the members of the Ukrainian diaspora in general, but about a group who make racist and xenophobic edits.

There must be more than a million people in spread between Canada and the USA who have Ukrainian roots, who I would class as Ukrainian-Canadians and Ukrainian-Americans. In 1947, former soldiers of 14 SS Division were allowed to emigrate to Canada and to the United Kingdom (this is very famous). I am not sure how many of them emigrated to Canada - maybe 5000. I do not know how many Ukrainians who had collaborated in the Final Solution emigrated to Canada and the USA - we are probably talking of hundreds. In any case if you add these two categories together,they are a tiny proportion of the people of Ukrainian descent who live in Canada and the USA.

The remark that is the subject of this complaint, in effect alleges that many (not all) of the people in Canada and USA making racist/xenophobic edits to articles related to Ukraine are not representative of normal Ukrainian-Canadians and Ukrainian-Americans, but instead are likely to be the children and grandchildren of this tiny minority mentioned above.

I fully accept that the remark I made was the wrong remark to make. It was made when I was angry and upset about the racist incident and the way it appeared to be handled.

If the editor who made the edits that appeared to be racist had been the one making the complaint about me, he would to some extent be justified in saying that I had made a personal attack on him. The Unclean hands defence would clearly apply. How is the situation different when the complainant is his friend who at the same time as making this complaint about me was editing on another AE incident to get that editor unblocked?


Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Editors warned says as follows:

8) All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee. This applies both to the parties to this case as well as to any other editor that may choose to engage in such conduct.
  • I have not used Wikipedia as a battleground. The complainant has not accused me of this.
  • I do not think that I have made generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group.... The complainant disagrees with me here.

If you look at other Digwuren cases - here is an example - you can see that people who are accused of violating the "Digwuren rule" tend to be accused of doing it many times, not a one-off unwise comment.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Toddy1[edit]

Looking at edits like this I get the feeling Tobby1 is trying to do the right (saying all are equal) thing but he got carried away and tried to outmaneuver (possible) opponents by discriminating them. I advice him to take a off-wiki cooling down period. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

All editors who talk about "racist bullocks" and Auswitzch [44] must receive a warning. Note that edit by Lvivkse (quoted by Yulia) has nothing to do with racism, however disputable it might be. Biophys (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 1) Toddy1 is claiming his remarks against me were justified due to allegations of 'racism', but he has not provided any diffs to back up his claims, stating above, "I suspect that some of the words used by the editor accused of making racist remarks in edit summaries may have been altered, as some of them are not as I remember them.)". If anything was altered, it would be in the record, we all know edit summaries / history can't be changed. Concerning the racist claims, check my talk page or the above filing request concerning Cailil, as these claims were bogus. I never said one cannot be Jewish and Ukrainian at the same time, oddy1 is repeating these made up claims. No diffs exist.
2 Toddy1 claims above, in saying that [Ukrainians in North America] "make anti-semitic remarks - they all club together and may get you banned for not being a racist like they are.", claims that "this message does not make generalized accusations about persons of a particular national or ethnic group.", which is obviously entirely false.
3) He is now saying the definition of a nationalist is "People who make xenophobic or racist edits"; would this be crossing another line? Its pretty askew to reality and just adding to the negative stereotypes being bandied about here--Львівське (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Toddy1[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
All you want is a warning per discretionary sanctions remedy? (wrong link by the way)--Tznkai (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This diff by Toddy1 does seem to be an example of ethnic stereotyping about Ukrainians, and it ought to be sufficient to issue a warning of the discretionary sanctions: "You must remember that many Ukrainian nationalists who live in Canada and USA have parents or grand parents who served in the Great Patriotic War on the German side. Some of them were like John Demjanjuk, others served in the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Ukrainian). Please do not offend them when they make anti-semitic remarks - they all club together and may get you banned for not being a racist like they are." It is unclear how large a group he is including in this blanket statement, but the whole thing is improper. His response above to the AE complaint seems like an attempt to justify the truth of this remark by limiting its scope, but in my opinion there is no way to fix it. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ed Johnston is clearly correct that such statements are the kind of ethnic stereotype identified in the case and fully justify a warning and notification of potential sanctions. A quick look through Toddy1's contributions doesn't show a pressing need for anything else at this time. Eluchil404 (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Warning given.--Tznkai (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


Blocked 2 weeks for 1RR violation, and formally notified of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions. T. Canens (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Hearfourmewesique[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nableezy 19:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Hearfourmewesique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 14:28, 11 October 2011 same as this past revert
  2. 19:07, 11 October 2011 labelled a revert
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Blocked on October 3rd for edit warring at Palestinian people (the exact same article and almost the same exact edits)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The user is fresh off of a 1 week block for edit warring at the same article over the same material. The user insists that so long as he disputes the material that his preferred version must be retained. Straightforward violation of the 1RR. The user's directive in the last edit summary demonstrates an understanding that discussion is required, but oddly the user seems to be under the impression that "consensus" is needed for others' edits, not his or her own. A week long block did not make the point clear, so something else may be needed.

BRD?!?!?!? If you want editors to follow BRD then when you are reverted you do not re-revert. This is a straightforward 1RR breach. I dont think I need to respond to the rest of the comments below, but if somebody feels there is any worth in them at all I will be happy to respond. nableezy - 19:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me??? "I dont think I need to respond to the rest of the comments below, but if somebody feels there is any worth in them at all[...]" – is this WP:CIVIL in any way? And in any case, there is a difference between an edit and a reversal. What exactly did I revert in my first edit today? Please do not provide an edit that's 10 diffs far behind, be honest here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Respond in your own section please. The first edit was almost exactly the same as the reverts that you were blocked over. Both reverts removed Israeli-occupied prior to West Bank and also removed or close to 500,000 if including approximately 200,000 Jewish Israeli citizens in Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem. The edits need not be exactly the same for them to be reverts. A revert is any edit that undoes another editors edit, in whole or in part. By reverting portions of the same material in the first edit you made a revert. You then made a second revert. You can, from now until the request is closed, self revert your last edit. You still have not. nableezy - 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Hearfourmewesique[edit]

Statement by Hearfourmewesique[edit]

This is a tactical war waged on a 1RR arbitration-enforced page. I made this edit to remove contentious information and stated in the edit summary that I am opening a discussion on a talk page, pleading editors not to revert me. This was my first edit, therefore it is not a reversal. I got reverted by Nableezy (talk · contribs) here, and although he replied on the talk page, he did not continue the discussion after I reverted him (for the first time, since the first edit was not a revert) here. So... this is Nableezy "giving me time", and this is him, 14 minutes later, notifying me of a report which was already filed. Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) is involved in this, mainly to enforce arbitration when it comes to leaving material that blatantly violates WP:NPOV and several other policies, to keep a Palestinian agenda in the articles. All I want is a fair discussion and for editors to respect WP:BRD, is it too much to ask? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment: it is untrue that the edits were the same as before the block, since the latter (earlier, chronologically) were mainly concerning the inclusion of East Jerusalem in "Palestinian territories". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Hearfourmewesique[edit]

  • As I wrote on your Talk page, calling your second revert "my one revert for the day" doesn't make it so. Your first edit of the day reverted (with minor changes) to your favored version of the lede from before your block. I would also remind you that 1RR is not an entitlement. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
...nor is it an excuse to shove your rivals aside. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: I think an administrator should give Hearfourmewesique notice of the ARBPIA sanctions regardless of the outcome of this report. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I first encountered Hearfourmewesique at Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict#Confusing poll in the "Present status". I suggest admins review that discussion because it provides an insight into the editor's approach to the topic area. The editor is clearly agenda driven and will damage content and reduce policy compliance if they are allowed to continue editing in the topic area using their current partisan approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes Sean, my "agenda" is to remove agenda-driven information that's either irrelevant or plain untrue (which I effectively demonstrated on that same discussion you linked, by proving that sources are constantly being distorted here, and when I showed you that your own sources are actually working against your agenda, I heard no further replies from you). This noticeboard is filled with complaints from Nableezy, all against editors who are trying to make Wikipedia a bit less of a propaganda site when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, yet are portrayed as agenda driven themselves. I asked the editors, politely, not to reinsert the material in question until proper consensus is reached (stemming from a discussion I started on the article talk page); the first thing Nableezy did was revert me, then replied with "nonsense" and "your comments merit no response". This is a stupid war, and I refuse to be a part of it. If any admin here will examine Nableezy's behavior, they will easily see the WP:Civil POV pushing by him and the others, as well as reporting every editor who disagrees with him, which reaffirms the POV pushing point I am raising. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Your intentions may be good but I don't think you are able to edit neutrally in the topic area or make objective assessments of neutrality. I walked away from that discussion. I almost never do that. The reason I walked away is because it's obvious to me that you can't see how your own views are compromising your approach to editing. Normally I don't care but in this case we are dealing with empirical data. I think I made my agenda quite clear. I tried to suggest a way forward that I think would result in a balanced NPOV compliant section based on a variety of sources but you only seem to be interested in content that conforms to your model of things, your truth, rather than simply reflecting reliable sources. That's fine. It's up to you but I won't work with editors like that nor do I think they should be allowed to edit in the topic area or they should at least be made aware of their own shortcomings and encouraged to improve. It's nothing personal but if you feel compelled to massage empirical data generated by a respected organization, present it and sample it in ways that are inconsistent with a representative set of sources so that it fits in with your worldview, I'm not interested. Messing with data is way over the line in my world. It's a question of scientific ethics. Having said that, I'm sure you have made many fine edits outside the topic area so this is only about a very specific and small subset of the thousands of edits you have made. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Either prove your claims or withdraw the personal attack. I actually showed you how I removed distortion of facts and inserted the correct representation of sources; you, on the other hand, endorse statements that are vaguely or not at all supported by the actual sources, but are a hand-picked misrepresented quotation that is taken out of context. Again, pot calling the kettle and all that. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Since I don't think you understand or care about evidence and proof there is really no reason why I would waste my time trying to prove something to you using evidence. I said what I have to say at the talk page and here. I know you can read. If you can't understand it, fine, it doesn't matter to me. You have demonstrated that you are incapable of editing in the topic area without damaging it as far as I'm concerned. You have shown a willingness to contaminate poll data with your editorializing, you are apparently unaware of the PLO's recognition of Israel's right to exist (as fascinating as your tabloid reprint of an WorldNetDaily article is) and judging by your "Geography, anyone???" edit summary at Palestinian people you believe that East Jerusalem and the West Bank are nowhere near eachother. You may believe that your edits and your approach are improving the topic area but in fact it's obvious that they are not. Now, I'm sure you will dismiss everything I've said for reasons that won't make any sense to me but such is life. If you continue this way you will be back here at AE very soon. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It's very clear to me that this is victimisation of Hearfourmewesique. It's also clear to me that it would be a waste of effort for me to say any more, as the conclusion is forgone. So I suppose this is moral support for Hearfourmewesique (whatever that name means Face-grin.svg) - some of us who aren't involved can see what's going on and though we can't help you, know that you are in the right. Egg Centric 22:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you... although you are the minority here, I do appreciate the support and can only hope there will be others that see what you see (and everyone should too, but this is not utopia). As for my name... read it out loud. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Egg - this is clearly viticmisation. Regardless of the result, Hearfourmewesique is in the right here. Toa Nidhiki05 19:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Umm, how? nableezy - 19:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Hearfourmewesique[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • This is a classic 1RR violation. By the definition of a revert given in WP:Edit warring, Hearfourmewesique's first edit of the day is also a revert. They have just returned from a one-week block for warring on the same article. In view of this, I suggest a two-week block and a formal notice of the discretionary sanctions. Prior to the October 3 block, editors explained the 1RR rule to Hearfour very clearly on their talk page and allowed a chance for them to revert, but they did not seem to be listening. After the block expired, Hearfour described the matter as a 1RR technicality. Now Hearfour is back again on the same technicality. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Concur. T. Canens (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Also concur. This is a simple clear cut case. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll implement the block and the notification. Closing. T. Canens (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by STSC[edit]

Appeal declined. NW (Talk) 15:06, 12 October 2011 (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 
STSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)STSC (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Topic ban from Senkaku Islands, logged at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku_Islands#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions; discussed at
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 

Statement by STSC[edit]

The administrator failed to satisfy the "Warning" provision of the discretionary sanctions process because prior to the sanction being imposed, I had not been given any direct and specific warning personally on my user talk page. I want the sanction to be lifted.

Further statement by STSC
I believe the spirit of the "Warning" provision is to protect the editors from any knee-jerk action or abuse of power by an admin. The Committee procedures are clearly defined, and any attempt to game the procedures is unacceptable.

Response to John Vandenberg
That general statement in NCGN page is hardly the "due warning" as required by the Committee. If the "Warning " provision in the Committee procedures can be disregarded in such a manner then what is the point in including it specifically in the procedures:
2. Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning;
4. Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;

Response to T. Canens and Cailil
I don't think your reasoning is valid because it appears that it may be gaming the Committee procedures. Please see my response to John Vandenberg.

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise[edit]

My comments are here: [46]. Fut.Perf. 06:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by arbitrator John Vandenberg[edit]

The warning at [47] is sufficient, in my opinion. It is good practise to notify users on their talk page, however everyone involved should have seen the notification on the talk page because that is where they were edit warring. 23:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

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

Result of the appeal by STSC[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The case clerk's notification of the decision in the case, coupled with the finding of misconduct in that decision, provides ample warning. Decline. T. Canens (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • That STSC was not only a party to the RfAr but also sanctioned by its finding (and notified of this and the decision of the ArbCom by the Clerk's note) means STSC was aware of the RFAR ruling, ie the discretionary sanctions. FPaS's note on October 7th at the WP:NCGN talk page also clearly made parties aware that they were on thin ice there (as noted by John Vandenberg above). Thus I have to concur with T. Canens and would decline this appeal--Cailil talk 23:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with the other three administrators who have commented here and am closing this appeal as declined. You may contest it on its merits if you wish, though I don't see that going far based on the comments here. NW (Talk) 15:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


Topic banned for six months. Ludwigs2, please see {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} if you wish to appeal
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 Ludwigs2[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Hipocrite (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Poisoning the talk page of an article (includes some personal attacks)[edit]

  1. 18:18, 7 October 2011 Poisoning the well - telling a "new" user that his opponents are baiting him, as opposed to attempting to get him to adhere to expected standards of behavior and normal editorial process.
  2. 22:48, 7 October 2011 Poisoning the well - comparing a group of editors he disagrees with to the KKK.
  3. 13:22, 11 October 2011 Poisoning the well - "This is - in my experience - typical of skeptical editors on fringe articles, who become collectively obsessed... So my advice is that all of you skeptics calm down and develop the body rather than fight like spitting cats..."
  4. 14:19, 11 October 2011 Defends the above.

Gross violation of NPA[edit]

  1. 13:26, 11 October 2011 "Stop being a troll..." on the talk page of an editor he is in a dispute with.

Edit warring[edit]

  1. 19:59, 10 October 2011 Bold edit. Possibly reverting something, but generally bold.
  2. 21:34, 10 October 2011‎ Reverts Dominus Vobisdu's revert of the bold edit
  3. 03:57, 11 October 2011 Reverts back to his preferred version from one being worked on by "new user" Givedarkkk and Dominus Vobisdu. His preferred version had previously been reverted by Skinwalker.

During this timeframe, Ludwigs2 made no edits to the talk page of the article. Only after his possibly third revert did he begin discussing on the talk page, as BRD requires

Problematic conduct after this filing[edit]

  1. [48] Blames Dominus Vobisdu for reverting him, when it was actually FormerIP
  2. [49] When this is pointed out, accuses DV and FI of "'tag team' crap" and calls them "irrational".
  3. [50] Suggests that if editors don't like his "explaining and reexplaining and re-reexplaining the intellectual mistakes that other editors are indulging in" for a year (ital in orig), they "should retire from the page and allow me to edit it in peace."

Log of required notifications[edit]

  1. Warned on 04:09, 22 September 2008 by Elonka (talk · contribs)
  2. Blocked on 23:27, 8 March 2011 by Sandstein (talk · contribs), see also [51], Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Additional comment by filing party[edit]

Note that nowhere in Ludwig2's voluminous statements does he resolve to stop comparing people to the KKK, calling them trolls, and other gratuitously offensive behaviors, and stop revert warring. Instead, he attempts to blame the messenger. Hipocrite (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have never referred to other editors as duped true believers - only poor sources like the Journal of Scientific Exploration. The page, aside from the "new" editors who were being dealt with was proceeding fine until Ludwigs2 polarized the environment. Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Ludwigs2[edit]

Statement by Ludwigs2[edit]

I'm not sure what the purpose of this filing is, but allow me to note a few seemingly obvious things:

for the required notifications section, Hypocrite lists:

  1. a three year old warning from a different article that was over a conflict with an editor (ScienceApologist) who has since been banned from the project for sockpuppetry, harassment, and worse against fringe articles.
  2. a block by an admin with a strong anti-fringe POV (Sandstien) which was so problematic that it spawned an entire ArbCom case of its own.

This is not a promising beginning to an enforcement request.

To his specific claims, I can make a few general statements:

  1. Pointing a new editor (SLP, who had at that time a total of 35 edits to his name) to wp:BITE and wp:BAIT and advising him that he should remain calm and cool, edit slowly, and diversify to other articles is hardly improper behavior. Fringe articles have a long history of problematic behavior from both fringe editors and skeptical editors (see my above notes about ScienceApologist and Sandstein); the advice was sound as a general rule. It is unfortunate that hypocrite took offense to it. but…
  2. the other diffs that Hypocrite provided all seem to be objections to statements I made highlighting problematic behavior of skeptical editors (to wit, the tendency of some skeptical editors to revert article changes without discussion in talk, the deeply entrenched battleground attitude many skeptical editors adopt on fringe articles, and the general strong-arm tactics some habitually use to defend POV edits). These issues are valid article development concerns, they have been regularly discussed in multiple places and are well-known issues on project, and my comments were not personal in nature. In fact, I'm convinced that I have been impeccably and thoroughly reasonable on the page to date (though I seem to get nothing except grief for that).

Further, allow me to point out that - while I could have perhaps phrased these things somewhat better - my behavior on this page is a vast improvement over places where I have truly lost my temper. You should be pleased that I have improved my temper as significantly as I have, and take it as a positive sign. I'm not perfect, and my actions are not always going to be perfect; but by that token, Hypocrite is not perfect either: note that his sole activity on the article has been to revert substantive changes, usually without talk page discussion, and that his talk page use has been limited to things like:

  • calling a source a 'transparent fraud' [53]
  • trying to confuse a newbie editor by making bizarre claims about his reverts not being major changes while substantive changes made by others are somehow reverts (I can't quite follow his twists, but he is obviously trying to place blame on the newcomer for something a newcomer could not be expected to understand) [54], [55]
  • casting an entire side of the debate as 'duped true-believers' [56]
  • accusing me of a personal attack for suggesting people should discuss things in talk rather than edit war in the article [57]

This is, in fact, precisely the kind of behavior I have suggested is typical of certain skeptical editors, suggestions that Hypocrite is complaining about. I think that qualifies as multi-dimensional irony.

As I have said, I have been being impeccably and thoroughly neutral and reasonable on the page - not perfect, no, but still impeccably and thoroughly so. I am making no headway, however, because editors like Hypocrite have made it clear that they are intent on poisoning the page so that putative 'advocates', 'apologists', 'true-believers' (or etc) cannot edit it. Kwami stated that fairly directly: "And then, of course, if they get that, they'll push for a little more, and a little more, all in the name of Truth fairness. […] It's a matter of heading off attempts by apologists to..." [58], and Dominus, Hypocrite and others have made similar assertions. In fact, I suspect that this case was opened in the hopes that I would get in trouble so that they would not have to deal with rational discussion on the article any longer, because their positions are not supported by any form of rational discourse (such aggressively skeptical positions only work in an atmosphere where a kneejerk reaction against rabid advocacy can be induced; rationality gets in the way because it fosters moderate attitudes). I am doing the correct thing in the face of a nearly intractable bias, and (excluding an occasional slip or moment of pique) I stand by my actions. What's really under discussion here, I think, is whether neutrality and rationality should be allowed to have any sway on fringe articles. I can only assume that we would want that to be the case, to which end this whole thing should be summarily dismissed. --Ludwigs2 06:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

response to Hypocrite
I did not suggest that you referred to editors as 'duped true believers'; I suggested that your use of such terms is divisive, combative, and geared towards the repression of disliked viewpoints rather than any form of collaborative editing.

With respect to your other point: It is your opinion that the 'correct' way to deal with new editors is to blanket-revert every change they make and refuse to explain yourself or walk them through wikipedia procedures in talk? I don't care how problematic you think the edits are, that is no way to deal with newbs. And yes, I recognize that you've put the word 'new' in scare-quotes, indicating your belief that this is not a new editor but rather a reincarnation of some old, troublesome editor. That is a bad-faith assumption in the first place, and troubling in its implication that you believe that kind of combative, uncommunicative behavior is a normal and acceptable way of dealing with experienced editors. Doubly troubling, in fact, because I'd blindly accepted that implication myself until I'd had a chance to think about it a while. That is not supposed to be normal, acceptable behavior on project, and I am sad that we have reached the stage where we all casually accept it as such. --Ludwigs2 14:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

response to KillerChihuahua
You've missed the point on my first comments. I was not trying to suggest that I was not notified (I am well aware of wikipedia policies, having been deeply involved in re-crafting several of them). I was trying to point out that I have been subject to a continuous bias on project, practically since day 1. As I said, I am impeccably neutral with respect to content - I defy you to find any content point I made on the Astrology page (or anywhere else on project, ever) that qualifies as biased, as un-neutral, or as advocacy of any sort. Some of my perspectives on life are (shall we say) complex, and that makes communication difficult sometimes, but I never defend a position I cannot justify through reason.

Pointing out that Sandstein made a tremendously bad block against me in defense of a problematic skeptical editor is not a personal attack against him; it's an indication of a bias on project. Pointing out that skeptical editors like ScienceApologist can literally go years indulging in gross violations of wikipedia policy while I get sanctioned if I so much as look cross-eyed at a skeptical editor is not blaming the victim, it's an indication of a bias on project. I can point to at least a dozen cases where some editor making silly, combative, and unsupportable edits against fringe topics tried to manipulate policy to get me sanctioned (I can only think of one case where an editor making silly, combative, and unsupportable edits in favor of fringe topics tried to do the same). I mean, look at the current dispute on the Astrology talk page: I point out that phrases like "The scientific community dismisses astrology" merely weasel-word an abstract entity (the 'scientific community') into existence, anthropomorphize it as having feelings, and then use those entirely problematic moves to create content which is unsourceable, unsupportable, and biased. The rational (collaborative) move would be for other editors to acknowledge that the statement is a bit extreme and tone it back a notch (not that much, just a notch, to what's supportable in sources). The actual behavior - here, and on every fringe article I've ever worked on - is that a half-dozen editors descend on the page to revert all changes, ignore the talk page or turn it into a quagmire of circular reasoning, and accuse me of policy violations for any trivial thing they can think of. That kinda sucks, no? Not what I expect of people purportedly defending the interests of science and rationality.

You don't like my attitude - I don't my attitude sometimes either - but my attitude is a product of trying to reason with people who do not want to be reasonable and are willing to use force to avoid it. if you have the interests of the project at heart, you will do something to change that dynamic, rather than try to force me to abide by it. --Ludwigs2 16:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

response to B.C
B.C., I have said I will be more civil and cooperative, and more to the point I think that an honest evaluation of the talk page shows that I have in fact been civil and cooperative for the most part. I'll even say it again: my intention is to be civil and cooperative on the page. What we have here is a microcosm where all of my mistakes are displayed side-by-side and portrayed in the worst possible light, and there's not much I can do about that if people do not want to look farther. C'est la vie

The real problem here is that I am objectively right but socially maladroit. If I were not objectively right I'd have gotten in far more serious trouble a long time ago; if I were not socially maladroit I'd be an admin. It's a problem for me and for everyone, I realize, but all I can do is do what I think is right as best I can, and doubtless that will not satisfy everyone. --Ludwigs2 18:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Compromise resolution
Because this whole this is not worth fighting out, allow me to offer a compromise, as follows:

I will make a determined effort and refrain from voicing what other people consider to be 'poisoning the well' type statements (since that seems to be the main concern here). I ask only two caveats:

  • That I be allowed to refer to skeptical editors as a cultural group in a non-judgemental way (the same way comments might be delicately voiced about editors of particular religious or ethnic groups). This is important on the pages I frequent because skepticism represents a distinct demographic with its own particular worldview that should be balanced against other worldviews.
  • That I be given the opportunity to refactor individual comments that slip through (this to handle the fact that I may not realize a particular comment will be considered poisoning the well when I write it). A note on my talk page with a diff should be sufficient to get me to reword things; I certainly won't argue with it.
obviously, any abuses of these caveats could be brought up for discussion here; that won't happen, but I realize the need for spelling out the detail.
This, I think, should satisfy all the valid concerns on this page. Would it be acceptable? --Ludwigs2 20:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Ludwigs2[edit]

  • Over the last two weeks, a group of new editors including Hipocrite have taken over the Astrology page and made sweeping unilateral edits to purge what their leading editor, Dominus Vobisdu describes as “fraudulent bullshit”. They have removed well cited material with scant reference to the Talk page and without consensus in order to push a fundamentalist sceptical POV. Any alternative edits have been quashed by force of numbers rather than force of reason. This request is an attempt to censor one of the few editors, Ludwigs2 who is engaging in civil debate on the talk page and contributing towards an impartial point of view. Robert Currey talk 22:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above in general. I'm not a frequent editor on the Astrology page but Robertcurrey sums up recent developments well. During the past week I have found that a number of editors (including Hipocrite who has initiated this request) have made drastic changes to the page without discussion and against previous consensus. There are those such as Robertcurrey that represent the astrology side of the argument but it seems they are presently outnumbered by a group of editors pushing the pseudoscience agenda, trying to discredit astrology every chance they get (little do they know that, without thousands of years of astrology cultivated by top minds throughout history, there wouldn't be any science to talk about today). A refreshing new face is Ludwigs2, who in my mind represents a very sober middle ground. He/she seems well educated, balanced and writes succinctly. It is a shame that an action such as this one can be initiated by editors who are red-handed in their own POV pushing, blatantly edit-warring, ignoring the Talk page, removing well-sourced and balanced material, etc, etc. If anything, Hipocrite and his/her group should be questioned on their uninformed and destructive actions (both on the Astrology page itself and various political maneuvering on the side). SLP (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ludwigs, you could avoid all this by just saying you'll be civil and more collaborative. Why don't you just do it? You were going to come back and act like an admin. BeCritical 17:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Collect[edit]

Ludwigs2 is a passionate editor. He does however have a strong bent for incivility towards others, which well ought to be curbed. The diffs show part of this, but it is a general problem which he has, at times, acknowledged. It is likely that any admin will not impose the strongest discretionary sanctions, but clearly a minimal one may not be efficaceous. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with this. BeCritical 01:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by mostly uninvolved A Quest For Knowledge[edit]

I am mostly uninvolved in this dispute. IIRC, I have never edited this article. I only made one small suggestion on the article talk page[59] and my change was implemented by another editor.[60] Ludwigs2 made a comment to me that was a tad bit too aggressive and I started a discussion on his talk page. I would like to continue that discussion with him.
Hipocrite posted some diffs and it's obvious that Ludwigs2 needs to tone down the language a bit, but there is also much wisdom in what he says. Sceptical editors on fringe topics who go overboard and ram the debunking down the reader's throat is a real problem on Wikipedia. It makes Wikipedia look silly and unprofessional. Whether this is a problem on this particular article, I cannot say. Like I said, I have never edited the article and only made a suggestion on the talk page.
So granted, my experience in regards to this article is limited, but I don't think that arbitration enforcement is necessary at this point. I would like to continue my dialog with Ludwigs2 in the hopes that it will be fruitful. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris[edit]

I have no real interest in Astrology other than occasionally glancing at the newspaper horoscopes and dipped into article for just a week or so (around late September - early October) after seeing it mentioned on a noticeboard or something. It was an eye-opening experience. There is a continual tension between a group of professional astrologers (such as User:Robertcurrey above, i.e., Robert Currey) and other advocates on the one hand, and more science-oriented ("skeptical") editors on the other.

The article also is subject to ongoing external canvassing, including this plea on User:Robertcurrey's web site with helpful instructions on how to avoid looking too obvious. The result is a trickle of new (or maybe not) accounts who immediately bluelink their user and talk pages, make a few random edits, then become essentially WP:SPAs. Despite all this, there was constructive movement on the article and a more-or-less civil atmosphere overlying the tension. Ludwigs2 then arrived on the scene to pour butane on troubled waters, with cheerful remarks comparing science-oriented editors to the KKK and such. Amusing in its way but at that point I decided to bow out. I leave it to the wisdom of those enforcing the sanctions to decide what to do; it's of little consequence to me, as I think editing the article just isn't worth the hassle. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with this and with Collect and AQFK. I was expecting to work with Dominis and with Ludwigs, hope we can refocus the discussion towards content and away from behaviour. One of the SPAs has systematically reverted every edit I have made. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment on response from Ludwigs2 The overall impression I get from the response is "it's OK for me to fling gratuitous insults at whoever I like, even while this enforcement request is open,[61] because I'm smarter than all of you and I'm right." That his response accuses others of a "battleground attitude" shows a mind-blowing lack of self awareness, and does not bode well for any possibility of moderating his behavior. No one is asking that he "kiss science troll ass" as he puts it, just that he refrain from being so willfully obnoxious. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Zachariel[edit]

I have made some discussion and some light edits on the main Astrology page today, and have been heavily involved in the page in the past – but not, I believe, in the period that Ludwig2 has been active in the subject. Nor do I know him/her; and don’t believe I’ve had any involvement with this editor in the past.

I have read through the discussion page today and seen the offending comments in context. In context, I cannot see how Ludwig2 can be accused of poisoning the well of an article that is suffering from such blatant edit-warring and polarised editing. Those who have criticised him(?) of bold editing without discussion have done the same. He has been outspoken in calling the situation as it is, but no more uncivil than several of those who are criticising him here (it seems just as bad to me, if not worse, to lump editors into presumed camps and leave indirect insults and implied accusations which generate sinister assumptions and create the divisive conditions that Ludwig2 has commented on).

Ludwig2 does not appear to want to promote or rubbish the subject; he is arguing in favour of objective content that eliminates emotive bias and personal agendas. In this respect, his input is very valuable. He does come across as an editor who has seen such problems surface before and is intolerant towards them. Viewed as diffs his comments raise eyebrows, but given the overall tone of the general discussion going on, to me they just seem direct instead of barbed with sarcasm or portraying hostility as an undertone, as many other comments do. (It's there, just the same, but you have to smell it rather than read it). All of the editors who have edit-warred and changed the content significantly should be warned about their violation of the page policy which asks them to remember that the subject is controversial and that substantial changes need to be discussed on the talk-page before introduced into the article. Ludwig2 should be encouraged to collaborate more but so should others. It would be wrong to single this editor out for criticism that applies to many editors working on that page at this time, including those who are bringing their complaints against him here. -- Zac Δ talk! 14:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hippocrite, the procedures explain that those who bring requests for enforcement should be careful not to come with ‘unclean hands’. Ludwig2 has a right to defend himself, especially since this request for enforcement seems to be based on little more than dramatic over-reaction to a few outspoken comments deriving from a content dispute that you, the proposer, are involved in. Enforcement is not supposed to be about content disputes, and arbitration requests should be the last stop in dispute resolution. Ludwig2 has engaged fully in the talk-page discussions on a very controversial subject and it’s easy to mine quotes from all participants that could be condemned as inflammatory. What responsibility are you taking upon yourself? Have you resolved to cease offensive remarks, such as referring to editors with knowledge of the subject as “duped true-believers”, and your provocative references to “transparent fraud”, etc? From what I can see this request was brought here without due cause. Like Ludwig2 I am concerned that it was not brought because of his provocative remarks, but because of his willingness to persist in rational arguments in spite of intolerance towards those arguments.-- Zac Δ talk! 13:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Olive[edit]

I became interested in watching this discussion from the sidelines and have also made a couple of copy edits to the article. I have a very little, basic knowledge of astrology, and no desire to become involved in a contentious topic area. Ludwigs on this article has shown himself to be an assertive editor with the intelligence and skill to wade through the log jams that can result when editors are driven by POV s rather than being aware of a more neutral middle ground which Ludwigs and a few other editors like BeCritical seem to be. Being assertive and being straightforward when arguing for NPOV should not be confused with incivility especially when an editor clearly offers to redact any comments which may have offended other editors as here. And with out assertion what I've seen on contentious articles are endless rounds of discussion which go nowhere.

  • the KKK diff seems to be to a general comment rather than a specific reference to any editors.(olive (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC))

Comment by Count Iblis[edit]

The full Moon may be to blame. Count Iblis (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


Analysis of report and response
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some specific comments regarding the filing and the responses.
Poisoning the well:
  1. Yes, Ludwigs ends with some "be calm" advice, but the bulk of the post is indeed poisoning the well, and that quite thoroughly.
  2. The KKK reference is clearly meant to be an analogy to illustrate how difficult it can be to edit Pseudoscience article from a non-critical POV. This is not poisoning the well.
  3. Like #1, only with the balance reversed. The bulk of the post is constructive, but poisoned by the introductory paragraph, which denigrates the other editors.
  4. Argumentative. Hostile. Accusatory. I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it poisoning the well, but parts were somewhat uncivil. Calling reverting BOLD edits "trolling" is confusing, at best; a NPA violation at worst.
The edit warring and problematic behavior is also well grounded.
Regarding Ludwig's response:
  1. Notifications are to show the editor is aware of the ArbCom sanctions. There is no half-life for such notification. This is not the 3RR noticeboard.
  2. Attacking Sandstein does not change that you have been notified. This is a battlefield mentality type response, and harms rather than helps your case, Ludwigs.
Ludwigs "general statements" do not acknowledge any room for improvement; indeed, he blames the victim by his dismissive attitude (ex:"It is unfortunate that hypocrite took offense to it. but..."
KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Ludwigs' lengthy response[62] to this: So basically, boiled down and paraphrased:You're always neutral, they're a cabal, your (Ludwig's) attitude is their fault, and if I(KC) really care about Wikipedia, I'll change the entire dynamic of the site so they don't incite you. No, I disagree. I also do not see any serious attempt to be self-critical or improve. Leaning towards making the topic ban 6 months, not 1. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Adding: It does not matter if Sandstein's block was immediately and soundly rejected by every admin who ever was, and was overturned in .05 nanoseconds; its still you finding out (being, as it were, "notified") about the ArbCom case. Cease this fruitless line of misdirection. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
As this seems to have provoked some misunderstanding, at least from one editor: This is due to a continued battleground mentality, blaming others and IDHT rather than any sign the editor in question recognizes his shortcomings and is interested in improving. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Ludwigs2[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • I'd like to hear from Ludwigs2 first before taking any action on this complaint. T. Canens (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
It's been a day and a half since this was filed (more?) and Ludwigs has essentially only edited Astrology-related pages since then. I suggest that admins go ahead and take whatever actions they deem necessary; if Ludwigs doesn't feel the need to comment, that's his business. NW (Talk) 04:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I suggest a month long break from all Astrology articles, to give Ludwigs time to think this over and hopefully come back with a more productive attitude, especially regarding his tendency to poison the well regarding his fellow editors. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
    changing to 6 month topic ban, due to IDHT and continued battleground behavior. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
    It would be nice if another uninvolved Admin would comment, pro or con. thoughts? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
    Within discretion, at the bare minimum. Since action has been taken, I am going to close this. Ludwigs2 can appeal in the standard fashion if he wishes. NW (Talk) 12:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


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

Request concerning Bdell555[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
2 lines of K303 09:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Bdell555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 07:45, 13 October 2011 Revert#1, adding back text originally added by Dbell555 here
  2. 02:32, 14 October 2011 Revert#2, within 24 hours of the previous revert
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 16:25, 17 June 2010 by RepublicanJacobite (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

In addition to being a violation of 1RR, the edit is also a violation of WP:BLP and WP:SYN. I'll give some brief background just to help make it clear why. During The Troubles, the Provisional Irish Republican Army and/or Sinn Féin did at various times conducted both direct and indirect talks with the British Government or their representatives, including the 1972 talks when IRA members were flown to London, during the 1975 IRA ceasefire, during the 1980/1981 hunger strikers, and during the early 1990s. Throughout The Troubles, but completely unrelated to those talks, IRA members became informers and passed information to the police, army, MI5 or similar. Therefore to have a sentence in Martin McGuinness's article reading "He was in indirect contact with British intelligence during the hunger strikes in the early 1980s, and again in the early 1990s, but in a BBC interview stated that the penalty for "go[ing] over to the other side" was "death, certainly." It insinuates Martin McGuinness "went over to the other side" by talking with the British, when he didn't and he's talking about IRA members, who are well aware the penalty for informing is death as it's in the Green Book which they have to read before being sworn in. So it's synthesis to try and conflate two different issues, especially to add a BLP violating insinuation. But when all's said and done anyway, it's a 1RR violation no matter what. 2 lines of K303 09:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel like I've stepped into some strange alternate universe where nothing makes sense.
  • There is the original addition of the text, reading "although he stated that the penalty for fellow Republicans who "went over to the other side" was death.<ref>[ McGuinness interview]</ref>"
Both edits were made by Bdell555, so the first revert was not some innocent mistake where he was adding back material previously added by another editor, it was a clear and unambiguous revert.
Claiming that adding information to a completely unrelated article, which was once deleted, would be a revert because the article was deleted, well I hope anyone can see the amount of wikilawyering involved in that one.
RepublicanJacobite's revert included WP:SYN in the edit summary, no attempt was made to comply with that with the second revert, nor was there any attempt to discuss on the talk page.
Given Bdell555 is stil edit warring to include this without attempting to discuss, hopefully this can be dealt with soon? 2 lines of K303 11:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Bdell555[edit]

Statement by Bdell555[edit]

In the above complaint, "Revert#2" is followed by "within 24 hours" in order to argue that this is an edit warring reversion. If time frame is relevant, and Wikipedia policy seems to indicate it is, then "Revert#1" should be followed by "within 16 months". This information is excluded, of course, because it doesn't support the claim that "Revert#1" is really a "revert" under a definition relevant to whether someone is edit warring. If one is to insist there isn't an identity and change issue by deeming the passage of 16 months and hundreds of intermediate edits to the article irrelevant, then by this logic I could return to, say, the Down with Webster article 50 years from now and ANY addition I make to the article could potentially be cited as a "reversion" in an edit warring complaint. Why? Because given that someone deleted the article in 2009, any addition I make, even in the distant future, is arguably a "reversion" of another's "work" (which was to delete everything). If an editor has declined to edit an article for more than 15 months, may I suggest that he or she has stopped edit warring? In the case at hand, I would dispute whether there was an edit war in the first place, given that last summer when my work was reverted I just let it remain deleted at that time. As for the content dispute, my "Revert#2" already attempted to answer an edit summary objection to my alleged "Revert#1". Any WP:SYN problem here could have been corrected by moving the material I added to somewhere else instead of deleting it, and instead of trying to cram this additional objection into an edit summary, the complainant could have explained his views on my User page, or better yet on the article Talk page, as opposed to first and finally introducing his argument here. However you want to define "edit warring" technically, in my mind it is undoing another editor's work without trying to minimize the undoing (e.g. by not making an effort to just partially revert or move, etc), without trying to work with the other editor(s) by changing the edit according to their objection(s), and without addressing the issue on the article Talk page. Given that more than a third of my edits to article and Talk pages are to the Talk pages, it is not like I am unwilling to discuss should the complainant be so inclined.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

To respond to the new allegations: 1) I have never claimed to be "adding back material previously added by another editor" and I have not called attention to any real or hypothetical cases involving this by way of argument (since those instances are irrelevant). My "innocent mistake" was thinking the "clock had restarted" after more than 15 months since the "clock" appears to be integral to determining whether edit warring is going on, both formally and in terms of common sense. If it NEVER restarts the guidelines should state that explicitly, in my view, because absent that people are going to make their own common sense assumptions about when edit wars begin and end. 2) re "wiki-lawyering" I'm not the party trying to take this content dispute to "court" 3) I "attempt[ed] to comply" with the WP:SYN objection with my latest edit and the complainant promptly responded by indicating that, as I suspected, this would not resolve the objection anyway! 4) the Talk page discussion, which in my view should have been initiated by the complainant before coming here to make demands on already busy admins, is underway now that the complainant has made some remarks warranting a longer response than an edit summary can provide.--Brian Dell (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Bdell555[edit]

Result concerning Bdell555[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Both of the edits listed above restore the phrase "over to the other side", which had previously been deleted by another editor. So there are in fact two reverts in 24 hours by Bdell555, and this is an actual 1RR violation. It should not be necessary to understand the complaint about WP:Synthesis to determine if this is a Troubles violation. A 24-hour block is a common remedy for a 1RR violation but it might be avoided if the editor will promise to avoid all Troubles articles for a month. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler[edit]

No action taken. Please make a new report for any new concerns. T. Canens (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Plot Spoiler[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
TransporterMan (TALK) 19:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 23:06, 8 October 2011 Initial revert
  2. 00:11, 9 October 2011 Second revert, 65 min later (violation)
  3. 00:32, 9 October 2011 Third revert, 21 min later (violation)
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 6 Apr 2010 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Previously blocked on 06:03, 3 June 2010, for violation of this same sanction. Newcomer editor Public awareness (talk · contribs) may also need to be warned under ARBPIA as a result of this exchange.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
  • Notice to Plot Spoiler here.
  • Notice to Public awareness here

Discussion concerning Plot Spoiler[edit]

Statement by Plot Spoiler[edit]

Please note, the ARBPIA notice was added to the page after all these reverts had been made. I did not see the ARBPIA restrictions on the page and honestly forgot about that rule. I think this is a relatively minor content issue between Public Awareness that should be covered on the article's Talk: page. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

At the same time, I now recognize that the article is subject to the 1RR policy and I will not be breaching it in the future. I apologize for mistakenly overlooking this policy and I hope Public Awareness will WP:assume good faith so we can actually resolve this minor content dispute. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I've now self-reverted my last edit from the article for the sake of 1RR. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, why is this an WP:AE issue? Shouldn't have this been pursued at other boards first? My understanding is that AE is the last stop solution. Isn't this an abuse of that process? Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Public awareness has been blocked as a sock of banned user Passionless. Can we close this already? Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Plot Spoiler[edit]

Comment Public awareness is on three reverts on the article in question, he is removing a quote which is sourced to the New York Times. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Look more carefully. nableezy - 19:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed, have amended my statement. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Stop bickering
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment PA's removal of the perfectly sourced and relevant content is borderline vandalism and any reasonable editor, including myself, would have reverted the baseless removal. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That isnt true. Both of these users have blatantly violated the 1 revert rule. Not a single one of the reverts is an allowable exception to that rule. nableezy - 19:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
What isn't true?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
That the reverted edits are "borderline vandalism". That border is well-defined, and this is not that. nableezy - 20:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
"borderline vandalism" is actually a liberal description of the removal of relevant sourced material with nonsensical/incoherent edit summaries.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
So, when an editor removes material with nonsensical summaries such as "better wording" or "dont see any footnotes, but referneces. reference 1 is foreign language article that appears to be an op-ed. unless its attribution is determined and noted, we will keep it simple" that is "borderline vandalism"? Or is it "borderline vandalism" when you, and you alone, makes the determination as to what edit summary is "nonsense"? Again, what vandalism is and is not is well-defined. The reverts listed here do not qualify for a vandalism exception as they were not reverting vandalism. nableezy - 20:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
@brewcrewer, the exception to xRR is for "reverting obvious vandalism" (emphasis in original). If you have to resort to wikilawyering, Public awareness's edits weren't "obvious vandalism". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
if any wikilawyering is necessary, its needed to explain this edit summary. "calling him a liar"? What? Who? Where? When?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Please don't change the subject. You're trying to excuse a 1RR violation by wikilawyering. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The subject is whether reverting with nonsensical/incoherent edit summaries can be considered vandalism. I have yet to see any policy contradicting said position or any attempt at rationalizing the removals and edit summaries. Attacking me does not count.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Really? You want a policy that contradicts "said position"? How about the policy that actually defines what vandalism is. See where it says Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism? nableezy - 18:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around the idea that the repeated removal of relevant sourced content without an edit summary would be considered vandalism, but once an incoherent/nonsensical edit summary is added it becomes kosher. I guess I'm not that good of a wikilawyer. Regardless, the whole issue appears to be moot because Plot Spoiler has apologized and self-reverted.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did at the time of the edit remember something about very limited editing reverts for Israeli articles, but than I saw that Nableezy, AndresHerutJaim (, and Plot Spoiler all made several quick reverts, so I did make a second revert. The situation was bleak so I went to Fastily (my go to admin) for advice, which I took and went to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard for help. Vesal did agree with my edit on the talk page for the article, that the current form did "imply that the man is a hypocrite" though he did not agree it was a BLP violation. I'm sure to remember now that I can only revert once for Israeli articles, but, where should I go for help when it is instantly clear the other editor has no interest in listening to get outside help as my section at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard was closed for being "premature"? Public awareness (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The article's Talk page is a good place to start. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Please tell me how I'm supposed to work constructively with Public awareness (PA) when s/he makes diffs like this: [64]? What PA is advocating has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, which relies on verifiability instead of truth. The WP:Soapboxing doesn't help either. In short, Public Awarness is holding the page hostage to his/her whim: "If the relevant policies are not changed, and the quote not removed, I will remove it myself next time I stop by." Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome of this complaint, I recommend that Public awareness be given the ARBPIA notice. (Plot Spoiler has already received it.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

@Plot Spoiler: 1RR violations under ARBPIA may be brought to WP:ANEW or here. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Equally so? My understanding is that WP:ANEW is the preferred method. WP:AE is just a last resort. And look at all the unnecessary drama it has caused. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
According to the template at WP:ARBPIA#Further remedies, "Reports of editors violating any of these restrictions should be made to either the Arbitration enforcement or Edit warring noticeboards." I agree with you that an AE complaint is more likely to attract drama. I've always made 1RR violation notices at ANEW. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
This may explain the confusion. One place or the other should be dealing with this, I dont really care which, but The Man should make up His mind. nableezy - 04:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Plot Spoiler[edit]

From the Vandalism policy page: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." (emphasis in original). There is no such thing as borderline vandalism. The malicious intent is either there or not. There is a borderline case for vandalism, where the proof is less clear.--Tznkai (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • We can leave this open for a few extra days to see if the revert warring continues, but I'm not currently inclined to take any action. T. Canens (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ludwigs2[edit]

Appeal unsuccessful. T. Canens (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Appealing user 
Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Ludwigs2 17:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Topic ban from Astrology article, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Ludwigs2
Administrator imposing the sanction 
KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
notice of appeal

Statement by Ludwigs2[edit]

This topic ban was improper for the following reasons:

  1. It failed to acknowledge or consider mitigating factors
  2. It failed to acknowledge or consider a perfectly feasible non-sanction solution
  3. It was (apparently) punitive rather than corrective
  4. It effectively imposes a dual standard for sanctionable behavior
Point 1 - Failure over mitigating factors
The sanction was based on the five or six unfortunate comments that were entered into the case. It failed to consider 50+ edits I made to the same talk page which were calm, cool, reasonable, productive, and in no way disruptive. On request, I will provide diffs of all such comments. Narrowly focussing on a small subset of behavior can make anyone look like a monster, and while I do not try to justify my comments, taking them out of context and placing them under a magnifying glass is an improper way to evaluate my behavior. My behavior on the page was largely good, and was improving as time went on, and that was disregarded as a factor.
Point 2 - Failure over non-sanctioning resolution
I offered a solution to the problem which effectively resolved all of the concerns raised: promising to refrain from 'poisoning the well' type statements.[65]. I included two caveats: that I be allowed to discuss skepticism as a cultural group (based on the common practice on fringe articles to discuss fringe advocates as insular groups), and that I be allowed the opportunity to refactor if I erred (this to avoid being blocked on the spot for a minor slip). KillerChihuahua did not acknowledge this in the AE discussion, and when I approached her on her talk page after her response was a gross misrepresentation of my offer, asserting that I had not pledged to de better (when in fact I specifically had) and that I was looking for a loophole to attack other editors. [66]. The latter was probably my mistake - I worded the offer as "be allowed to refer to skeptical editors as a cultural group" instead of be allowed to refer to skepticism as a cultural group" - but I would hope that would be obvious from the context. See more on the more troubling aspect of this issue in point 4 below.
Point 3 - Punitive nature
Policy for sanctions on Wikipedia asserts (I am using the language from wp:Blocking policy, which I assume is universal) that sanctions are intended to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. However, it is clear from KillerChihuahua's language that she is not aiming to alter my behavior, but rather to adjust my attitude - "I suggest a month long break from all Astrology articles, to give Ludwigs time to think this over and hopefully come back with a more productive attitude"[67], "I also do not see any serious attempt to be self-critical or improve. Leaning towards making the topic ban 6 months, not 1." Whatever one may think of my 'attitude' on project, it is not KillerChihuahua's or the Project's purpose to change it or improve me as a person. The goal of sanctions is to prevent disruptive behavior. Since (per the previous points), the behavior being questioned was largely gone and I had offered a resolution that would effectively end it, this sanction can only be perceived as a punitive measure.
Point 4 - Dual standard of sanctionable behavior
KillerChihuahua's sanction effectively creates a dual-standard of behavior on fringe articles. Editors on fringe articles have a long history of referring to people who believe in fringe topics as specific and identifiable minority groups, despite the fact that on a topic like astrology from a quarter to a half of the general population has some belief in the topic. Sometimes this is done abusively, as with the all-to-frequent dismissive comments about 'fringe advocates', but generally it is a valid move important to maintaining NPOV and proper perspective on the article. KillerChihuahua's objection to my offer focuses entirely on the fact that my request to do the same with skepticism is morally wrong [68]. However, it is precisely as necessary for neutrality to keep a clear vision of skepticism as a cultural perspective as it is to keep a clear view of fringe views. It would be impossible for me to bring every case of fringe-group labeling to AE - there is a long-standing acceptance of that practice in administrative pages which would make any such case unsuccessful, and the sheer volume of cases would swamp AE (I could easily produce ten or twenty over the course of a standard week) - so a dual standard is created in which one group perspective is subject to unilateral administrative sanctions. The administrative process on Wikipedia should not be complicit in enforcing violations of NPOV.

Proposed resolution to the Appeal

I would like the topic ban lifted under the same conditions (slightly modified, for reasons given above) that I offered on the AE page:

  • That I refrain from 'poisoning the well' type commentary.
  • That I be allowed to refer to skepticism as an insular perspective (in a non-poisoning-the-well manner), consistent with the standard practice of referring to fringe groups as insular perspectives.
  • That I be allowed to refactor if I make an error (within reasonable constraints, obviously), so that I am not constantly in danger of being sanctioned for any reason at any moment.

Modifications are, of course, welcome if further guarantees are necessary on the project's side: my main concern is relief from punitive sanctions and some guarantee on my side that this ruling does not become an excuse to impose future sanctions vindictively.

This is going to be my behavior regardless. Whether or not this sanction is lifted, I will be entering discussions on articles where I will run against this strong cultural bias, so it is obvious that I will need to be deeply circumspect in my actions regardless. We might as well begin on the astrology page now rather than later; the ban serves no particular purpose. --Ludwigs2 17:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

quick response to KC, before I'm off for the day

  1. Considering violations without giving any credit to context or improvements is not appropriate.
  2. As I clearly stated, (1) it is a long-standing practice to lump groups together on fringe pages, and (2) the use of the term 'editors' was an unfortunate typo. I am not making a judgment about the wisdom of that kind of grouping (I can, if you like). I'm simply stating that the practice cannot be sanctionable for one side only. Doing so means you are using your power as an administrator to assert that a particular viewpoint is true, and that's unconscionable.
  3. You refuse to accept it when I say I will stop, you refuse to look at all of the positive contributions I made to the page, and then you turn around and tell my I need to reconsider my approach? what approach is it precisely that you want me to reconsider, if not to have better behavior and make positive contributions? It is increasingly clear here that you are trying to punish me for some some attitude you dislike rather than deal with my occasional bad behavior. that does not rise to the level of unconscionable, but it is unfortunate.
  4. the editor who filed the report (Hypocrite) refers to 'duped true believers'; there are numerous comments on the talk page about 'advocates' and 'apologists' for fringe topics. there are even such comments by participants in the AE thread itself. Your comment that I was the only editor in the report can only mean that you are intentionally ignoring similar behavior by others in order to make a case for a stronger sanction, and that - again - speaks to a punitive mindset.

KC, you are simply not being reasonable. --Ludwigs2 18:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Response to T, Canens
I am noting for the record that this is the second time I have received an excessive and unjustified sanction under Arbitration Enforcement while working on a fringe topic. People can say what they want about my flaws (and undoubtably will; it seems that personal attacks are always allowable when directed at me) and I never deny it, but a system where punishment is doled out because someone 'feels' like an 'attitude' needs adjusting is just plain horrific. You ask me to examine my flaws, but you (collectively) are unwilling to examine your own. If you want to pursue an utterly pointless sanction against me I can't stop you (short of raising the issue with ArbCom itself, I guess, and I doubt it's worth that), but I cannot respect the system or the people who use it in this emotionally haphazard way. --Ludwigs2 14:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Clarification to KC
The principle I am concerned with here is the intrinsic bias that I (and many other editors I know) experience when working on fringe topics on wikipedia. It's a function of not toeing to the skepticism line: Anyone who does not agree that fringe topics are intrinsically contemptible is labeled as an advocate and monitored by numerous editors who seek out problematic behavior to use in administrative actions. We are required to have far better behavior than other editors (because everything we do is examined with a fine-toothed comb), are punished more severely for smaller infractions (because people exaggerate the problems hyperbolically), and are generally harassed by other editors/administrators with impunity. I'm not suggesting that you intentionally gave me a harsher punishment than I deserved because I did not toe the skepticism line; I'm telling you that the deck was stacked against me the instant I stepped onto the astrology page and tried to create a neutral tone in the article. This would never have happened if I were trying to add damning information to the article, even of my behavior were far worse than it was (which I know because I've been on the receiving end of far worse behavior, and seen the perpetrator excused for it).

I keep hoping that administrators will see the light and do something to redress this bias, but it's becoming increasingly clear that that will not happen. Sooner or later, I'm afraid, we are going to have to reopen the pseudoscience arbitration decision and fix it by ArbCom fiat - it will not get fixed otherwise. In the meantime, I'll be on my best behavior. That will not make any difference, mind you; I will certainly be back here in a few months because someone somewhere will will find some excuse to impose a sanction on me. The only real power I have is to be as close to perfect as possible and force whomever that will be to reach for something truly trivial as an excuse for the sanction. But mark my words, it will happen. We can reopen this discussion then. --Ludwigs2 16:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by KillerChihuahua[edit]

Response to points as numbered by Ludwigs:

  1. Edits which did not violate sanctions were not specifically considered; while Ludwigs' contributions to the project were weighed in determining the sanction, the report, discussion and sanction were all necessarily about the violations, not adherences to, policies and Discretionary sanctions as authorized by ArbCom.
  2. Ludwigs offered a "counter proposal" to proposed sanctions, in which he basically offered to try to follow policy so long as he was allowed to continue to lump opposing editors together, as he would "ethnic or religious groups". I did not consider this a helpful solution. I neither accused him of not trying to be better, nor of looking for a loophole, but did caution him on my talk page when approached that such characterization is problematic and has led to blocks and bans.
  3. If Ludwigs cannot edit collegially, he cannot edit. A topic ban of short duration will hopefully allow him time to reconsider his approach. I changed from 1 month to 6 due to his continued combative approach on AE, indicating he would continue problematic and disruptive behaviors. It appeared to me that more time away would be needed to gain the necessary perspective. I hope 6 months is enough time; I hope he spends that time wisely, re-examining his edits on Astrology and why they were so disruptive and unacceptable. In his statement, he included the comment that "I don't [like] my attitude sometimes either - but my attitude is a product of trying to reason with people who do not want to be reasonable and are willing to use force to avoid it." in which he admits that his attitude may have a fault, but then turns around and blames that on the other editors, who "do not want to be reasonable". There is nothing punitive about trying to separate an uncivil editor from those he blames for his lapses in civility and personal attacks.
  4. Ludwigs2 was the only editor in the report, and therefore the only editor for whom sanctions were considered. There was no hypothetical other editor who was not sanctioned. This is unfortunately another example of the "Us vs. Them" battleground view which has caused so many problems, and is continuing to cause problems, for Ludwigs2 and editors trying to work with him.

Please let me know if there are any questions, thank you. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: the topic ban is fairly narrow, and about a subject (Astrology) that Ludwigs2 has stated several times he does not care much about editing; he has also stated that "I'm not all that concerned about the topic ban itself" and is appealing merely for the principle of the thing.[69] I'm not quite clear on which principle he feels is in play here, however. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Note 2: Regarding AQFK's and T. Canens comments regarding sanctions of persons other than the person reported: Yes, we have the discretion to sanction others; I have done so myself in the past and will surely do so again. I did not mean to imply that such sanctions should not happen, or that I never consider them, etc; but rather that in a case where only one person is reported, for that person to have sanctions and not others is not a "double standard"; a double standard would have been if two editors with virtually identical transgressions, editing history, contributions records, comportment etc had been reported, and one had been sanctioned and the other not. So 1) this is not a case of having a double standard and 2) My post was not meant to imply that because this particular time the one person reported was the only person sanctioned that is how it always is, or should be. Sometimes the reporting party is sanctioned and not the one reporting, for example. (And when that happens, its not a case of shooting the messenger, either.) KillerChihuahua?!? 13:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Becritical[edit]

I think the Ludwigs has earned himself some sanction, certainly, for being chronically uncivil. But the way it looks to me he has stated that he will not be uncivil anymore. Thus, I think 6 months is harsh. I was expecting something more like two weeks or a month, and then another chance to see if he can be civil and not refer to groups of editors in a negative manner. I would suggest revising the ban period to two weeks or a month, then give a longer ban if things do not go well when he comes back. He does have useful ideas on the articles where he edits. He is also correct that the more scientifically oriented editors are nasty to the advocates a lot. This is a fact for what it's worth. It is obvious that there are two sides at the article, and it would be unreasonable to try and make Ludwigs never mention that fact. The two sides obviously come from different social milieus.

How about if he promises not to make his own behavior contingent on the behavior of others? Because I've been observing him for some time now, and eliminating that excuse would go 90% of the way to either having him be civil, or else be uncivil with no excuse at all. BeCritical 19:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment Olive[edit]

As long as a solution has been offered by Ludwigs as an effort to correct his own behaviour then a sanction becomes only necessary as a secondary step, that is, if the first step, in a community that professes to be non punitive, isn't effective. Self correction on Wikipedia by implication is a superior and preferred way to deal with behaviour that is not community accepted. And Ludwigs is right. Name calling is rampant in regards to some editors and by some editors.The truly unfortunate aspect is that this name calling has become so commonplace, like fringe POV pushers, advocate, and worse, and has become so engrained in the Wikipedia culture that it is accepted, brushed aside with out notice, or ignored.

If any aspects of Ludwigs proposal isn't acceptable remove it , and amend the proposal. Always, our position must be to help editors improve behaviours, and to do so in a way that does not punish good and productive editors. Seems a simple, first-step solution has been offered. (olive (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC))

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge[edit]

I have not participated in the discussion on the Astrology talk page, but I have followed it over the course of the last week. From watching the discussion, it's clear that Ludwigs2 has earned himself a sanction, but it's also clear that he's not the only one causing a problem. On the one hand, I am sympathetic to the viewpoint that the reason why Ludwigs2 is the only editor being banned is simply because he was only editor being reported. That's fine. I understand that. But on the other hand, by focusing on a single editor in a dispute when other editors are also causing a problem, it simply leads to gaming of the system. I don't fault anyone at AE for this happening. My point is that a more holistic approach is required. Maybe my point is beyond the scope of this appeal, but something is broken in the system itself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie[edit]

Just a comment here, this caught my attention (I have AE on my watchlist). I personally do not consider the sanction to be out of line with expectations. In fact, I have concerns that this is seemingly a habit with Ludwigs2. Consider the events of the Arbitration Enforcement Sanction Handling ArbCom case. Ludwigs2 is a generally decent editor, as long as other editors remain relatively civil. However, they has a habit of "returning fire" so to speak. If they perceive someone as editing outside Wikipedia's norms and policies, then they feel justified in violating those norms to deal with it. Unfortunately, as the saying goes "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind". It is important to stay within Wikipedia's norms and policies when everyone else is.. it is just as important to do so when other editors are violating them, it means that admins and others in the topic area can see the difference between those playing by the rules and those who are violating them.. makes everyone's life easier....SirFozzie (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ludwigs2[edit]

Result of the appeal by Ludwigs2[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This appeal does not seem to challenge KillerChihuahua's conclusion that misconduct occurred, only the sanction imposed for the misconduct. I'm not convinced that KC's chosen sanction (a 6-month topic ban) exceeds the limits of admin discretion. Regardless of whether I would have chosen to impose the same sanction or a more lenient one, therefore, I'm of the opinion that this appeal should be declined, consistent with my longstanding view that AE appeals should not be used to micromanage the severity of sanctions. If, after some time, Ludwigs2 can demonstrate a substantial positive change in his interactions with other editors, an appeal to shorten the ban will likely be considered favorably. T. Canens (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
    • AQFK raises a good point. Ludwigs2 made some serious allegations against Hipocrite that, if true, may well constitute grounds for sanctions. While KC is correct that H. wasn't technically reported, and we are never obligated to look into the filer's conduct, we do have the discretion to do so, and in this case it might have been better if we had taken a long, hard look at all involved parties. Regardless of the particularities of this case, I think we should clarify the way by which a countercomplaint may be made. T. Canens (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I think T. Canens (and KC) are actually making a very important point about this appeal - it doesn't challenge the grounds on which the sanction was given (ie behavior incompatible with collegial editing); and given that KC's points in the original AE thread dismiss the dubious diffs and rely only on diffs where editwarring and well poisoning occurred I don't see a reason to overturn KC. I would echo T. Canens's suggestion that if, after time has passed, that Ludwigs2 can show that there is no longer a need for this sanction he should appeal it then--Cailil talk 15:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see any flaws in KillerChihuahua's reasoning and her closure with a 6-month topic ban seems well within discretion. At any time, Ludwigs2 is free to start creating a record of more calm and reasonable participation in discussions, to show that this previous problems are over and that he is able to "discuss matters more circumspectly and ... avoid drama-creating rhetoric." If he does so, this close might be revisited. His self-assigned role as a defender of certain positions which he feels to be unfairly maligned on Wikipedia can't be helpfully pursued at Talk:Astrology and I don't know what is a better venue. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


Jonchapple is topic banned from articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, broadly construed, for a period of three months. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Jonchapple[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Domer48'fenian' 08:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Jonchapple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Per Result concerning Jonchapple Terms of probation and Enforcement

All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.

Terms of probation Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 18:04, 13 October 2011 First Revert
  2. 19:55, 13 October 2011 Second Revert
  3. 20:46, 13 October 2011 Third Revert

Additional Violation of Probation since report was filed.

All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.

Terms of probation Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert.

  1. 11:27, 17 October 2011 First Revert adds Flag against WP:MOSFLAG in addition to changing Nationality from Irish to British with sources making no mention of British.
  2. 08:40, 18 October 2011 Second Revert, Per previous again adding flag against WP:MOSFLAG and ref which dose not support addition. Notice the big green race car with big shamrock not to mention the Team Ireland logo's. Editor accepts that they are editing against the terms of their probation by reverting on British Nationality.


  1. 06:57, 18 October 2011 First Revert: Again reverting over British Nationality.
  2. 09:49, 18 October 2011 Second Revert: As previous, again Nationality.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
Prior Notices of 1 RR [70][71][72][73][74][75]Violation of Terms of probation notice
  1. Warned on 19:34, 14 August 2011 by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on 16:24, 14 August 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs) who made them aware of the Terms of probation
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
The editor is well aware of the enforcement and sanctions, and has made it a habit of arguing the point regardless. As the notices placed on their talk page illustrate, this disruption is over a number of articles. The editor is knowingly violating this enforcement. Should addition diff be required I'm more than happy to provide them.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Jonchapple[edit]

Statement by Jonchapple[edit]

I am fully aware of the sanctions under which I'm placed, but I haven't broken 1RR on any articles that come under the scope of the Troubles restrictions. If you've got some more diffs that prove I have, please provide them. JonCTalk 08:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

One Night in Hackney, Flags of country subdivisions is not an article related to The Troubles, British nationalism in Ireland, the Ulster Banner or British baronets. It's a gallery of flags used by subdivisions of states from around the world. It's as equally related to Argentinian nationalism, Australian nationalism, Austrian nationalism, Belorussian nationalism, etc. JonCTalk 09:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
With respect, KillerChihuahua, I'm not trying to offer up an "I didn't know!" defence, merely stating that the article in question clearly isn't covered by the Troubles restriction. Per Template:Troubles restriction, articles subject to the restriction are defined as: "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland". Flags of country subdivisions isn't, and as such isn't subject to 1RR. JonCTalk 14:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I can't believe this is even being considered. So, what – anything that mentions Northern Ireland even in passing is now subject to Troubles restrictions? Is Georgie Best? The Titanic?
Or is it the fact that paramilitary groups identified with the Ulster banner? Is the Flag of Ireland under a hidden 1RR too because it was used by republican groups? Honestly, I don't even know where we're at here. Maybe I'll just have to get into, say, birdwatching instead. Hope there's no birds in Northern Ireland. JonCTalk 16:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll only say this one more time: Flags of country subdivisions doesn't fall under the Troubles restrictions. Is anyone actually going to address this? JonCTalk 23:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to look at the page history of Adam Carroll, you'd notice the flag and British nationality have always been there as he's a racing driver that races with a British licence. From WP:MOSFLAG: "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality - such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams." (emphasis mine). This is the convention for racing drivers on Wikipedia, as the infobox is their racing infobox that displays their sporting information, including the country that they represent. I have now provided two sources from the two racing leagues Carroll has raced in since 2010 that clearly show he races as a Briton. You shouldn't edit articles related to subjects you clearly know nothing about (and have only found by trawling through my edit history; not for the first time). JonCTalk 12:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to One Ton Depot's assertion that he finds it "hard to reconcile with his comment a few months ago in the Nationality RFC that [he's] 'in agreement that the Anglo-Irish disambiguator is neccessary here'", I'd just like to make it clear that that particular discussion was for what should appear in the lead. I don't believe there was any discussion about what nationality should be in the infobox. Thanks. JonCTalk 11:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Jonchapple[edit]

Considering the probation section reads "To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles" (emphasis added) and Jonchapple is indeed edit warring regarding the Ulster Banner, his defence is incorrect, particularly as he is "fully aware of the sanctions under which I'm placed". 2 lines of K303 09:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If an article has got the Ulster Banner in and you're edit warring over it, it's a related article. If an article has got the Ulster Banner in and you're edit warring over some other part of it, it's not a related article. It's not rocket science... 2 lines of K303 09:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
more troubles
See Ernest Shackleton and Talk:Ernest Shackleton#redux.
Jonchapple has been systematically edit-warring over the terms Anglo-Irish and British on this article since February. There's a large RFC on the very issue just above the redux link: Talk:Ernest Shackleton#Nationality. Jonchapple even agreed that "Anglo-Irish is good". For reference:
[77]; Anglo-Irish to British, with link changes, too. [78]; removes Irish-born. [79]; adds Anglo- resulting in Anglo-Irish. Followed immediately by: [80]; Nationality to British. [81]; Nationality to British, again. [82]; Nationality to British, again, removing a source re Anglo-Irish (BBC, ironically). [83]; Nationality to British, yet again, and yet again removing the BBC link. In this edit summary, it is asserted that Anglo-Irish was just added five days ago (which would be the edit by me, where I linked the BBC page): [84]; Anglo-Irish sourced to BBC.
[85]; Jonchapple agrees with a request for comment that "Anglo-Irish is good. :)"
 — One Ton Depot (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Since posting, here, I've read this whole thread and the older one (and see that two of the reverts I mentioned were previously given). Jonchapple has removed my post to his talk page about this and posted on mine protesting that he believes 'British' was the stable version. I find this hard to reconcile with his comment a few months ago in the Nationality RFC that [he's] "in agreement that the Anglo-Irish disambiguator is neccessary here." Say one thing and do another, I guess.
He's been at this article for 8 months, and is here for more of the same, on others. Someone clarify just why he should ever edit regarding anything British/Irish again? It's disruptive, and takes time that would be better spent improving articles.
One Ton Depot (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Jonchapple[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • He's already on probation, the only option left is a block. I suggest a one week block, and if he comes back and does it again, block for increasing periods of time until he either learns or is indef'd. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but we have had enough of this "I didn't know!" defense from this editor, and I am disinclined to suspend disbelief enough to believe this is sincere this time. I almost simply blocked and then closed this, but would appreciate other admins offering their views before taking this step. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Support 3 month topic ban per updated options, see below. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Jonchapple was here at AE as recently as September 24, which is later than the August appearance which led to his Troubles probation. See the closure of that AE. When closing, I stated "I'm closing this with no action. However any new appearances of Jonchapple here at AE in the next three months, as either the source or the target of complaints, could cause the issue to be revisited." The reason for the AE complaint was this comment by Jon in his edit summary, referring to Domer48 as 'Dumbo48': "Seeing as Dumbo48 won't play nice, let's remove the republican links from this article". During the discussion at that AE, participants (including one arbitrator) stated that WP:TROUBLES could be interpreted nowadays as allowing bans from the area of conflict. Since that AE was about to close with a 3-month topic ban, I propose that we now go ahead and issue the topic ban that was previously considered. The mention of the Ulster banner in the Troubles arbcom case surely allows banner-related edits to fall under Troubles enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
    I had forgotten that, thank you for reminding me. I support a 3-month topic ban for this editor. So glad we're not painted into the "block or nothing" corner. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
    Does WP:TROUBLES give us the authority to hand out a topic ban? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
See the discussion in the Result section of the last AE about Jonchapple for the logic of giving out topic bans under TROUBLES. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. That is fine with me. Perhaps we should ask Arbcom for a clarification or amendment to make it official. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
It might be nice to have a note, I forgot this myself, and I was part of the discussion - but do we need to pester Arbcom with that? Ask a clerk, maybe? Or Coren, since he was the one who commented on the earlier case? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Definitely wouldn't hurt to have this clearly on the record - and I am still of the opinion that the Troubles remedy provisions should be revamped. T. Canens (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Speaking as one of the original administrators in this area (which is a reason I have recused myself as an arbitrator), I am in the firm opinion that from practice as well as theory that a topic ban is within the bounds of the Troubles discretionary sanctions, and while recused, issue a statement supporting this in any such clarification request. I am not going to speak on the APPROPRIATENESS of the sanction (administrative recusal), just the validity of the sanction itself). SirFozzie (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
So are we in agreement on the sanction as proposed by EdJohnston? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
3 months is probably lenient considering the last thread, but it's fine with me. T. Canens (talk) 09:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
3 months, then, and if he's back before the three months is up we'll look at other measures. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll go ahead and propose to the committee that we make a quick motion to bring the Troubles remedy in line with our now-standardized discretionary sanctions. I've little doubt that this preserves the original intent and simplifies things for future enforcement. For now, I agree that a topic ban is a reasonable application of administrative discretion even though a strict reading of this older remedy does not directly support it. — Coren (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    thanks much, this will make things much more even. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


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

Request concerning Tuscumbia[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Tuscumbia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [86] First revert on Gülablı article on 27 Sept.
  2. [87] Second revert on Gülablı article on 27 Sept.
  3. [88] Third revert on Gülablı article on 28 Sept.
  4. [89] First revert on 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 30 Sept.
  5. [90] Second revert on 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 30 Sept.
  6. [91] Third revert on 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 3 Oct.
  7. [92] Fourth revert 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 3 Oct.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on [93] by Stifle (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on [94] by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The recent edits which I have highlighted above are what I believe a mere sampling of the improper conduct of user Tuscumbia. Though well-acquainted with the rules of Wikipedia and after editing here for well over three years and after having been topic-banned for no less than three times, Tuscumbia displays an editing behavior that is highly unwelcome and needlessly combative. As the above examples show, he demonstrates a proclivity to edit war excessively and to engage immediately in revert wars over the most insignificant issues rather than taking part in fruitful discussions (in what can best be termed as having issues of WP:OWNERSHIP). Even when tags are added to an article, long after an editor has expressed his misgivings on the pertinent issues, he still decides to remove them and claims the other editor's concerns as baseless. But is that really his judgment to make? Although in discussions reasonable arguments (to most viewers) are introduced, Tuscumbia chooses to play games and makes burdensome and unrealistic demands which are not all in accord with Wikipedia's guidelines but appear to aim mainly to exhaust the other editors' patience. And when a user finally expresses his exasperation over these type of time-consuming edits, all he receives is a response like this: "You know what? You can complain as much as you want because that's the only thing you're capable of..." ([95]). How do remarks like this help at all? And even after his long time spent on Wikipedia, he still feels he can create articles with such non neutral POV opening sentences as "The an underground militant movement reportedly created by Dashnak leadership in 1989 to torment Azerbaijan..." [96] until another editor informs him of why such wording is so problematic.

Much as I was opposed to it, I was advised to present my grievances here by an administrator who is relatively familiar with such cases. I myself do not know what is to be done but familiar as I am with Tuscumbia's long history of edit wars and his tendency to make snide remarks against other editors, I believe perhaps a form of revert parole needs to be established to compel him to express his views on the talk page, rather than drive him to press the revert button with whatever edit he disagrees with. His attitude toward others must also become more constructive because what he is doing can best be termed as stonewalling. Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I should like to add that this request has been re-listed after being archived by the bot on October 10.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, even though Tuscumbia has been warned and topic banned twice for specifically choosing to exclude a sources based on his or her ethnicity, he still continues to use it in his arguments as evidenced by a remark he made just today.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
This is, for the record, the second time I am re-listing this complaint. While my original comments may now appear to be stale, I should just like to draw attention to Tuscumbia's comment here. Even after being topic banned and warned for bringing up the ethnicity of an author as a reason to exclude possibly a source, he continues to raise it as a major point in such arguments.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Tuscumbia, please do not misrepresent my comments. My considerations are based solely on the scholarly credentials of individuals, as well as the political environments they work in. If a source has a known affiliation which can credibly be raised as prejudicing their conclusions, then something to has to be said. That is not the same as touting someone's ethnic heritage as a reason to exclude an author, for which you have given ample warning. And Sandstein's "restriction", for the record, was just a courteous reminder and something that is given whenever someone edits on Wikipedia. He did not necessarily have to tell me that such comments were unacceptable since this is a common fact. Now please stop shifting the argument to me and please tell us why a source's ethnic heritage is sole grounds for sudden exclusion or suspicion.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Tuscumbia[edit]

Statement by Tuscumbia[edit]

Frankly, I don't even know how to react to this report which has no grounds, no evidence of wrongdoing and most importanly, is filed in bad faith. First off, the report itself is apparently filed in retaliation to the report I had filed on Takabeg which also included the inputs from Marshal Bagramyan. You might notice that ever since that report was filed (and was archived without result for reasons which I still don't understand), Marshal has been following me on articles I created such as 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing, 1991 Azerbaijani Mil Mi-8 shootdown and Vrezh in an obvious attempt of trolling and disruptive editing activity. Now, I would understand if an editor has grounds for concern and puts forward reliable sources to support his arguments, but you will not see that in Marshal's edits and arguments. I will present that evidence below.

  • Article Gülablı: In his report above, Marshall hides the evidence of his wrongdoing. On September 15, he made this edit, replacing the legitimate name of Gulabli with Vazgenashen, which is an illegitimate name given by the separatist authorities currently in control of the village, albeit the name Gulabli is sourced from a neutral GEOnet Names Server. More importantly though, he added this Armeniapedia link as a source for his additions. Armeniapedia is a one sided unreliable source owned and operated by User:RaffiKojian ([98]) who has been recently collaborating with Marshall on articles Dashalty and Barda, Azerbaijan. Off-Wiki coordination? His second edit is the revert to his version from User Dighapet and third edit is the revert from my version where I restored information based on neutral sources, including the name Vazgenashen as called by Armenians and adding links to other Wikipedia, removing the Azerbaijani drone shootdown section which incorrectly referred to the village as Vazgenashen, based on Armenian news piece Armenian Reporter. My second revert on September 27 13:58 and one on September 28, commenting on existence of POV on the talk page [99] and [100]. As another user Vugar mentioned providing a link to Wikimapia, the village Vazgenashen is not even the same village. See the map and description in Russian: Село, построенное после Карабахской войны для армян-беженцев (A village, built for Armenian refugees after Karabakh war)
  • Article 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing, my revert on September 30 is the undoing of Marshall's I DON'T LIKE IT attitude, where he replaced the word "terrorist" and removed the affiliation of the terrorist group to Dashnaks, completely disregarding the sources [101] and [102] which corroborate the text of the article. My second revert is undoing of the edit by a sockpuppet Szeget of an infamous sock master Xebulon (I do wonder how this sockpuppet finds his ways to be on the same page as Marshall. Off-wiki coordination? Ducking?) My first revert on October 3 is undoing of Marshall's violation of WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT because all he does is change the sourced data to make it seem less reliable by removing words like "perpetrators" and reference to Dashnaks, again, when the text is supported by sources and while Marshall does not provide a single source for his changes although I repeatedly asked him to provide sources which corroborate his argument and changes [103], [104], [105] which he, in turn, calls "overburdensome request". My secondrevert on October 3 is the removal of POV and Unreliability tags which Marshall added on October 3 in the absence of any sources to support his arguments and changes. To sum up, instead of looking for sources supporting his arguments, he likes to just add tags. Tags are added when something is disputable and both sides present sources upon which compromise is being reached. This user adds tags as last resort to mislabel the article, already well sourced.

Last, but not least, Marshall's misuse of admin's note as if it were instructions from AGK to report me, is simply an act of intended misrepresentation. AGK asked to report your concerns on this board to resolve the issues instead of asking him to resolve in on his page, not because he reviewed the evidence and supports you.

One more thing Marshall selectively forgets when bashing me about topic bans, is that he himself has been a subject to revert paroles and topic bans on AA2 4 times, including an indefinite topic-ban on Azerbaijan-Armenian pages (later reduced to one month) and indefinite restriction for making derogatory statments about sources or their authors based on nationaility, place, publication or similar general characteristic. So, who is really a long time edit-warrior and displays disruptive behavior?

I, in the years of editing (less that Marshall has spent) have created 343 articles for various subjects including oil and gas fields, government bodies and institutions, food and drinks, TV shows and personalities, crime, terrorism related to Norway, United States, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Germany, Sweden, Russia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Angola, Romania, etc. It just happens that most of articles I created fall under category Azerbaijan which seemingly causes discontent for MarshallBagramyan who decided to get rid of me. I think the admininstrators of this board should take a thorough look at the evidence, including Marshall's long term wrongdoings and take adequate action. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I am really not sure where exactly on the discussion page of the article Marshall sees me "excluding" authors based on ethnicity, as he tries to entrap me into enforcement? What I said was that while the data is conflicting (see on 1823 data from neutral authors and 1897 census of Russia), and while he discredits neutral authors who have no relative affiliation to Azerbaijan, the author of Armenian heritage is more likely to write in favor of Armenian side of the story than those unrelated to Azerbaijan authors in favor of Azerbaijani side. And this is all because Marshall tries to dismiss any reliable neutral source which does not support his claims. My full response on Marshall's misinterpretation is on the talk page of the article. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Response to the additional note for relisting

The user MarshallBagramyan who filed this report and who twice relisted it on this board fails to highlight his own wrongdoings. I will address the above addition by Marshall on my comment about his selective sourcingfirst. First of all, the comment has nothing to do with ethnicity of the author per se but should rather be reviewed in the actual context of discussion on conflicting census data. And the resume of the discussion is that:

  • George Bournoutian (Marshall's source who is of Armenian heritage) says one thing
  • Four other authors, namely, Anoushiravan Ehteshami, Svante Cornell, Frederick Coene and Suzanne Goldenberg (neither one of them Azerbaijani nor Armenian) say something different.
  • I additionally provided basis (from Russian Imperial Census) for my argument that considering various parts of the census data, there are grounds for indepth analysis of Marshall's source which are also voiced by the four authors in their books. Hence the discussion of the sources on the talk page of the article. So, what another editor (Neftchi/Mursel) initially did in full compliance was that he retained Marshall's earlier addition but also added an alernative view of four authors indicating "According to...", etc. However, Marshall went on discrediting those four authors, claiming that his source prevails. Furthermore, he deleted one of the sources (by Suzanne Goldberg) and even added a link in Further Reading section to the point of view by his source George Bournoutian which criticizes other alternative views.

So, what we have is:

  • the author used by Marshall (George Bournoutian) who is of an Armenian heritage and writes in favor of Armenian version of demographic changes in the region and criticizes all other alternative views;
  • four authors used by Neftchi (Anoushiravan Ehteshami, Svante Cornell, Frederick Coene and Suzanne Goldenberg) who are of Persian, Swedish, Jewish heritage and write alternative views countering George Bournoutian's version of events.

And Marshall is favoring Bournoutian over other unrelated to Azerbaijan authors. Where is the logic here? That's what I was highlighting in my comment. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Another important fact about author-bashing

As you will witness from this thread, Marshall is attempting to get a well sourced article using the same tactics. Please take a look at his first comment where he bashes an unbiased neutral author Charles van der Leeuw saying "...some of them also have a discernible affiliation with Azerbaijan, such as Charles van der Leeuw..." and then please take a look at his other statement a few days earlier saying "...even the two non-Azerbaijani government affiliated sources, van der Leeuw and Bolukbasi, make use of the word allegedly...". So, it looks like Marshall knows a particular author is not affiliated with any government and is unbiased, yet he discredits authors when he wants and how he wants when their certain works or arguments cause him much discomfort. Again, this is a user who has himself been placed under indefinite restriction for making derogatory statments about sources or their authors based on nationaility, place, publication or similar general characteristic and has violated his three months topic ban (from Jule 23 to october 23, 2010) in edits like this one adn was not blocked as a result. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Tuscumbia[edit]

I'm pretty swamped in meatspace. Can someone else take a look at this?--Tznkai (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I just blocked User:Kermanshahi and User:Takabeg pursuant to edit warring requests. Not sure if that is relevant here.--Tznkai (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Tuscumbia[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Link to the remedy you want enforced, not the case. It is a small thing, but it is you who should be doing these small things, instead of making an already difficult task that much more work.--Tznkai (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)