Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive39

MarshallBagramyan[edit]

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

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

Request concerning MarshallBagramyan[edit]

User requesting enforcement: Grandmaster 19:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [1] [2] [3] [4]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: This user was placed on 1 rv per week restriction in accordance with the ruling of arbitration case Armenia - Azerbaijan 2: [5], which was logged here: [6] Despite this, he made 4 rvs on Moses of Chorene within the last 4 days, which is a violation of his editing restriction. After the first 3 rvs I warned him about the violation, and asked him not to revert within the next 7 days, to observe his restriction: [7] Despite that, he reverted the article once again today. Clearly a repeated violation of his editing restriction.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block, since warnings are ignored
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [8]

Discussion concerning MarshallBagramyan[edit]

It's true, I engaged in all those reverts but only because User:Dbachmann radically altered (mutilated, more correctly) the state of the article, inserted POV terms and slanted the article towards a certain bias, all without ever achieving consensus. He even changed the name of the article without achieving consensus and has resorted to insulting Armenian historians and dismissing their scholarly work with the childish excuses of "nationalism." I asked all the editors to discuss their edits on the talk page and to maintain good faith with the promise that I will help improve the article in coming days and just received impulsive reverts and more intimidating, racist, hateful insults from Dbachmann.

A more clear-minded and less-POV driven administrator would be preferable. He clearly is deadest on eliminating nationalism from Wikipedia which is a noble goal but I believe his rather hypercritical pursuits in doing so are making Wikipedia a less hospitable place to work in. Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning MarshallBagramyan[edit]

Blocked for 2 days for the admitted violation of the 1RR sanction as well as for the response above, which violates WP:BATTLE, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Should MarshallBagramyan continue to violate the sanction after the block has expired, I recommend a lengthy topic ban. Sandstein 20:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Ayn Rand[edit]

72.199.110.160 is currently engaged in an edit war on the article in breech of Arbcom ruling here. The IP has been doing a lot of constructive work in improving citations, but has also been inserting material that other editors consider biased refusing to engage in any conversation despite repeated requests see here. More recently the editor has inserted a series of mini essays on objectivist philosophy. This has been discussed on the talk page here and agreement reached that the material is inappropriate. Despite this the IP has re-inserted the material here and here. The IP has refused (or rather ignored) all requests to discuss matters on the talk page of the article. Requests to do so on the IPs talk page have been completely ignored, including ones warning that failure to do so would result in the issue being raised here. This is a pattern that also occurred last December before the Arbcom ruling. The reversions are similar in number to those that earned variable length topic bans for other authors and are compounded in this case by a resolute refusal to engage in any discussion. Ideally the imposition of a topic ban or other penalty maybe the only way to get this editors attention. --Snowded (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Topic bans are social mechanisms, not software ones. If he doesn't engage in discussion odds are he won't recognize a topic ban. I would recommend a one to two day block to get his attention explaining that if he is going to continue contributing he needs to engage and not edit-war. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the users prior form I would be tempted to do both if it was my decision, however anything that gets the IP to engage would be appreciated. The advantage of a topic ban is that it enforces discussion as a social process and bans can then follow if the social process is ignored --Snowded (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The editor's contributions to the Ayn Rand article and related articles have been overwhelmingly positive, and I do not think the cited behaviour can be characterised as edit-warring; they do not tend to make successive reverts, and make attempts to compromise with interlocutors. That said, their lack of willingness to participate in talkpage discussions is quite regrettable. Skomorokh 13:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Mainly positive yes Skomorokh, and for that reason I left reporting until they did start to make successive reverts against talk page consensus. Refusing to discuss changes on the talk page is just plain wrong and someone with some authority needs to tell them so.

I assume this section has been shaded in by mistake as no resolution is noted by the way --Snowded (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The shading was a formatting error by me in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Header. It is now fixed. Sandstein 15:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User is still not engaging on the talk page. Per ArbCom's decision we would greatly like some kind of administrative intervention here. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I reverted them today, referring to talkpage consensus, and they moved on without a challenge. Blocking would not serve any productive purpose, as all their lack of participation on the talkpage is doing is disenfranchising themselves from the decision-making process. If they start repeatedly reverting against talkpage consensus, we have a problem; til then, the article is improving as a result of both their edits and our discussions, and we ought to continue on this path. Skomorokh 21:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an injunction on all editors to engage on the talk page Skomorokh, they have reverted on a 2RR already and in the past and the sheer number of edits is over wealming and while many are cited, some are "flavoured" as was discussed at one point on the talk page.. Many of them are good, some are dubious sources, some are opinions. Blocking may or may not be the right option, but someone with some authority needs to tell them to engage. Relying on reversals is to encourage edit warring. --Snowded (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with Skomorokh's summary of the situation. The injunction is to avoid disruption, and although some edits counter discussion slow things down, I'd say he/she has not been disruptive. Karbinski (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

and here we go again. Our IP editor makes this edit. Objections are made on the talk page and it is reversed. Part of the objection is the provision of "explanations" for any criticism. Shortly afterwards our non-communicative IP editor carries out a dozen edits which while not being a strict reversal are simply similar words to say the same thing are we have another example of edit warring. The IP editor is clearly pro-Rand so I can see why Karbinski would support him or her. I do find it disturbing that Skomorokh is tolerating or even encouraging an editor to refuse to take part on the talk page, and to whom communication is only possible by reversals of their edits. --Snowded (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The content contributions from the editor are helping the article, there are plenty of "editing editors" on hand monitoring the articles.

Snowded is a continual "force" for ensuring any discussion devolves into a unconstructive mess. "The IP editor is clearly pro-Rand so I can see why Karbinski would support him or her" - is a full unambiguous attack on me as he is essentially saying "everything Karbinski might have to say or has said is POV and should be disregarded." How can constructive discussion follow? Putting editors on the defensive on the talk pages will always be more disruptive than a bonifide content contributer with poor wiki-ettiquette. Karbinski (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Karbinski, you are the one who started off this whole sorry saga by attempting to sneak Rand's definitions into Philosophy without acknowledgement and engaging in an edit war before your source was identified and your views "outed". Ironically if you hadn't done that then I (and other editors on the Philosophy articles) would never have come to the Ayn Rand pages in the first place. To say that you are pro-Rand is simply to acknowledge your own statements so I hardly see how it is an attack. I'm sorry but the whole arbcom process was designed to create a environment in which all editors discussed things and the IP is not following that process. While they just inserted references it was OK, but then we got the edit wars and no amount of friendly requests have produced a response. I see that Skomorokh has now placed a final warning on the IP editor's page by the way after the latest set of reversions. I don't see why one editor who appears to agree with your POV should be allowed to edit without discussion. --Snowded (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Everyone see what he did there? I'll provide the diffs for Philosophy article edits: first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth. Karbinski (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And the edit war discussion [here] and the discussion on your failure to identify your sources (as well as links so some of your political articles here. In any event I see you are now happily removing criticisms without discussion on Ayn Rand so I think the position is clear. The desire of a small group of editors to remove or qualify any criticism of Rand, and to promote her ideas on other articles (covertly in your case) is one of the problems here. It eventually drives other editors away which is doubtless the intent. --Snowded (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion here: [9], and edit here: [10] Karbinski (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Full discussion here, hardly an "unconstructive mess" per your minor personal attack above. --Snowded (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Per the ArbComm ruling I would like to ask that we get some kind of administrator intervention to ensure order on the talk page. Just, please, if a couple could watch and help ensure a more civil environment that would be fantastic. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Someone re-posted content SA had written somewhere else, and it got reverted. Nothing to do. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Request concerning ScienceApologist[edit]

User requesting enforcement: KP Botany (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/<Fring science>#<Motion to sanction ScienceApologist>]]
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [11][12]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Heck if I know, posting here will probably result in my being banned and insulted and targeted by arbcom members-especially the one who already has a personal beef against me. It's a question. God knows where one can ask questions.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): clarification -- is this allowed? or not? the article is dreadful, the rewrite is comparatively elegant and appears, upon first glance, to be rather well-rearched and outlined
Additional comments: notification [13], plus will post link to this after this is posted. --KP Botany (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning ScienceApologist[edit]

It's quite simple: ScienceApologist has not been proxy editing. He's been working on an FA drive for the optics article in user space at Wikisource, with the consent of administrators at that project (myself included), and someone who was impressed with his work took the initiative to attempt to port it to Wikipedia without asking either SA or myself (SA's mentor) until after the cut and paste was done. I reverted the change, per GFDL, shortly after confirming with SA that he had not requested the import. There is nothing to enforce here. Durova^Charge! 22:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It does seem to be an attempt to edit by proxy, in addition, because another user is discussing the article on SA's talk page.[14][15] --KP Botany (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
You my trust my assurance, as his mentor, that ScienceApologist did not request that attempted port. The discussion at my own user talk explains it. Thank you for your diligence, but SA did not proxy. Durova^Charge! 23:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Others can decide, and let editors at optics know, and that will clear the way for the discussion at Talk:optics to focus on how, and when, if at all, the content can be used. The appearance is that SA is discussing the article with Wikipedia editors. After all, that's how other editors found out about it, to export it. It's on his talk page. --KP Botany (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Upon what basis could they possibly decide? Must he violate his siteban and refute you here himself? The port was a license violation, done in good faith but unauthorized. We seek to improve the encyclopedia in compliance with policy, and without disruption. This request is becoming counterproductive. Durova^Charge! 00:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist did not make the edits here, and even if he jumped up and down at Wikisource begging for some patsy to post a vicious antifringe article here, he wouldn't be violating his ban. He gets to do whatever he likes off-wiki, though I suppose death threats would cross the boundary. He's done nothing wrong, he's worked hard on what appears to be an excellent article. If there is some bad source there, some hidden anti-fringe message, well, he's earned it with the excellent work, and the bad part will be discovered and fixed. In fact, KP Botany, if you want to do something useful, go to the article on Wikisource and look for problems. And fix them. If there is a bomb hidden there, you would do us all a service by finding it. If you have a problem with edits here, take it up with the editor who made them. I considered porting the page here myself, but I asked about it on Wikisource talk and was asked not to do it, because it should be done right, and someone who knows how to do it properly will do it, I presume. I am no friend of SA's antifringe agenda, and some of his supporters are currently agitating for me to be banned from fringe topics, but SA has done good work here, and it should be supported and recognized and not subject to harassment. The place to discuss the draft is on Wikisource. Alternatively, the proposed edit can be discussed at the Talk:Optics. But leave out the charges of meat puppetry and focus on the content. If there is some disruptive edit, then deal with the allegedly disruptive editor who made it, not a banned editor who is respecting the ban. --Abd (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning ScienceApologist[edit]

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed. Nothing to be done (see top). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Xasha[edit]

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

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

Request concerning Xasha[edit]

User requesting enforcement: Biruitorul ^Talk 04:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: Xasha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [16]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Xasha is under a topic ban (issued here) prohibiting him from "editing Eastern European-related articles". Moldova is in Eastern Europe, so he has violated that ban.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): A topic ban already is in effect; I don't know what the next step would be.
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. [17]

Discussion concerning Xasha[edit]

I don't think that this edit warrants asking for further sanctions at AE. Given the topic ban in October, it perhaps time to loosen those restrictions somewhat; it is draconian to place an indef ban on an editor editing in one area. --Russavia ^Dialogue 23:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Xasha[edit]

Blocked for one week. Xasha's edit at issue violates the Eastern Europe topic ban that is still in force. If Xasha thinks the topic ban is no longer needed, he should have appealed the topic ban, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, instead of violating it; indeed, the administrator imposing the block indicated his willingness to review it at [18]. Xasha may still ask for such a review as soon as this block expires. The duration of the block is in line with the duration of Xasha's previous blocks related to this area of conflict. Sandstein 05:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Bov[edit]

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

Request concerning Bov[edit]

User requesting enforcement: Jehochman ^Talk 13:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: Bov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary_sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [19][20][21][22] and [23]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Repeatedly violating WP:V and WP:UNDUE to add Truther propaganda to Wikipedia. Feigning ignorance of policy, after having edited here for more than three years, and been sanctioned previously for violations of WP:ARB9/11.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Indefinite topic ban
Additional comments
[24]

Discussion concerning Bov[edit]

Firstly I request that, unlike some previous 911 ARBCOM cases, an uninvolved admin handle this case.
The first four diffs Jehochman provided [25][26][27][28] are no more than the same two sentences with multiple references, consistently reverted by a group of editors with a particular POV, that refer to a peer reviewed paper on findings that are used by the major proponents of the controlled demolition theory to support their claims. The edit contains no OR, POV or comment and as such is entirely compliant with the article subject. At worst Bov has technically broken his revert restriction while those reverting the edit are possibly themselves guilty of a violation of the 911ARBCom. The last of the diffs [29] is a talk page request for an explanation as to why the edit is being reverted. The only reply Bov is given to this request is "I have requested arbitration enforcement" by Jehochman who has a record of such POV behaviour as a first action in preference to either first warning an editor if concerned or answering such questions. This case needs to be viewed in light of the fact that the article name was recently changed from Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center to the more inclusive title World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Care should be taken to actually check the edits relationship to the article for the determination of good faith. Wayne (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You risk a sanction yourself when making snide comments on this board. Who are you suggesting has acted inappropriately here? If nobody, zip it. Jehochman ^Talk 16:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Looking at Wikipedia:ARB9/11,[30] Bov is already on an indefinite 1rr per week restriction for previous IP abuse; he's clearly violated this. Is there a reason his edits haven't been reported in relation to this restriction? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That too! Diffs above. Jehochman ^Talk 16:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 48 hours. Having had a look at his contributions, I see no reason why this guy should be editing a popular encyclopedia in this area and plenty of reason why he shouldn't. Since he's blocked anyway I'll leave this just now to allow other admins the chance to give input on the new restriction. If nothing's added in the next wee while I'll impose a new restriction. A three month restriction has the benefit of keeping him around [by incentive] within CU range, but if no other admin suggests anything else, I'm gonna just make it indefinite. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to give him another (3 month) chance to be a disruptive element. He's been told, warned, sanctioned, and nothing has penetrated. It appears he is not motivated to work within Wikipedia's framework, but rather to disruptively promote his own views. I support Deacon's indef restriction. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Bov[edit]

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

Indefinite article and talk topic ban placed. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bov has broken their ban. [31] Could an administrator please issue a block. Jehochman ^Talk 02:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

They've broken the ban again [32][33][34] - evidently a longer block is needed. Hut 8.5 08:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Sandstein 09:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Jingiby and WP:ARBMAC[edit]

Jingiby (talk · contribs) has been on ARBMAC-related sanctions for ages, but he keeps "forgetting" them. Most recently, a revert parole was re-enforced on him, with 1rv/48h and an injunction of preceding each revert by an explanation on talk and 3hrs waiting time to allow for discussion (see User talk:Jingiby#Reverting). He nevertheless keeps making immediate reverts without prior discussion (though I think he does generally stick to the 1/48h part). The latest one was today, here: [35].

Since I am (again) the reverted party, I can't act to enforce the parole. Could somebody please step in (and remember this is a repeat violation.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Reviewed edits, parole, and block log, have blocked for 2 weeks for violation of revert parole. MBisanz ^talk 10:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Maiden City[edit]

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

Request concerning The Maiden City[edit]

User requesting enforcement: BigDunc^Talk 17:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: The Maiden City (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: Revert #1 Revert #2 Revert #3
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: 3 reverts in less than 24 hours, which is a violation of 1RR
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Unsure
Additional comments: Informed of sanctions here. Editor is also under investigation for sockpuppetry see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Here

Discussion concerning The Maiden City[edit]

Per my comment at Discussion concerning Mr Taz below, I am not sure that section is an enforceable remedy. I will ask the editor who wrote it, Rlevse (talk · contribs), to explain. Sandstein 20:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The link Sandstein is referring to is not part of the formal case remedy voted on by the arbs in the case. It is part background and part observation that I wrote and should be treated as such. It's in the log section, not the decision section. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Rlevse. If there are no objections, I intend to close this request because there seems to be no arbitral remedy to enforce here. Sandstein 21:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The sanction or remedy that has been violated per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case which states that: All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. This is clearly illustrated with Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: Revert #1 Revert #2 Revert #3. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As explained by its author Rlevse above, that section is not an enforceable arbitral remedy. Sandstein 21:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Without going into the merits of this particular report, this development seems rather disturbing. Editors have generally worked well under the 1RR restriction, and to have it removed will only cause more edit warring and less discussion. The "remedy" comes from this discussion with a caveat of "NOTE: If this is approved, I'll post it to The Troubles arb case". So what exactly was being "approved"? Is this entirely null and void is it going to be open season on revert warring rather than discussion again? This is not a step forward in my opinion. O Fenian (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As noted below, nothing is "removed"; rather, it turns out that there was no valid 1RR restriction in the first place. Edit warring is still sanctionable by admins much like any other disruption, just not via arbitration enforcement. If you think a 1RR restriction should be imposed, you may petition the ArbCom to add that remedy by means of a motion, at WP:RfAr. Sandstein 22:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Until I know what was "approved" I am not fully satisfied. A proposal was made for "approval", everyone seemed happy with it and it worked well, and suddenly we are being told it was all a big mistake. How many people have been blocked under this restriction that, apparently, should not have been? O Fenian (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as an ex-administrator who dealt heavily in this area, I am rather disappointed to see the "Must have ArbCom's blessing" attitude from someone I expected better of. I invite you to review the voluminous history of this, the multiple ArbCom cases, the constant editwars. The 1RR rule is the only thing that keeps everyone from putting these articles in a constant state of editwarring. As far as I'm concerned, the 1RR rule is not only an active, actionable remedy, but it's very much needed. But this is Wikipedia, where Bureaucracy rules, and to hell with common sense. But fine, I'll set up a jump through the hoops so you can sleep well at night, knowing that you're not a "rogue" administrator. *shakes head* SirFozzie (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both O Fenian and SirFozzie. While I don't like it, never did and still don't it has worked. Now if it is the case that it is not an enforceable arbitral remedy I'll be looking to have my block log amended to reflect this and everyone else who has been blocked using it. As has been pointed out by SirFozzie there has been a voluminous history of this, with multiple ArbCom cases and have been addressed my multiple Admin's so are you now suggesting both you and they were all wrong. We have a clear breech here and User:Sandstein dose not want to enforce it, and this is not the first time. User:Sandstein never said anything when they rejected the unblock requests made under this ruling so what has changed? --Domer48_'fenian' 08:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about this general topic is ongoing at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request to amend prior case The Troubles. I have commented there and propose we wait what action, if any, the Arbritration Committee decides to take. Sandstein 08:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply by The Maiden City

Having just come across this childish vendetta by O Fenian and BigDunc I can respond as follows.

For your information the so-called reverts were edits. It was O Fenian and BigDunc who actually took it in turns to revert my edits. It is quite clear that these two individuals (if in fact they are two) have commenced edit warring against me in every article that I have contributed to. I have already reported O Fenian as a Troll due to his actions. This very request for sanctions comes from and is sponsored by these two users, it is further proof of their conspiracy against me aimed at preventing me from contributing verified edits to certain controversial Irish related articles. A quick reference to the Free Derry (talk) page highlights O Fenians activity against all and anything edited by me. There are no others involved. I intend to continue to make genuine contributions to these articles and will endeavour to have the edits incorporated within the articles no matter how disruptive these individuals attempt to be. I do not have enough experience of Wikipedia to evade all the pitfalls and certainly do not know all the rules but can only assure administrators that I am genuinely trying to improve the articles that I now contribute to. --The Maiden City (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Note to this case by SPI clerk Mayalld (talk) An SPI case has concluded that following his earler block, this user continued to edit without logging in (as 78.33.101.58 (talk · contribs)), evading the block, and that the request to unblock the account came only when the IP was itself blocked (to evade the block on the IP). As the user has been engaged in repeated block evasion, he has now been indef blocked for that evasion. The IP is blocked for a week. As the IP appears to be static, it might be proper to block for longer. Mayalld (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning The Maiden City[edit]

This enforcement request is now moot because The Maiden City (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked for block evasion. As to the procedural issue, ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request to amend prior case The Troubles indicates that the sanction at issue is a community sanction, not an arbitral remedy, and I assume that the case page will be amended to reflect this. Sandstein 16:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Perscurator[edit]

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

Request concerning Perscurator[edit]

User requesting enforcement: Jehochman ^Talk 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: Perscurator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: WP:ARB9/11
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: WP:ARB9/11#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: Check user contributions at random. Samples: [36][37]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Virtually all edits focus on the promotion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, in violation of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP and the arbitration case sanctions.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Indefinite topic ban from all 9/11-related pages, including talk pages, broadly construed. User was previously warned.[38]
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [39]

Discussion concerning Perscurator[edit]

I am reluctant to accede to this request. All but three edits of Perscurator are from autumn 2008 or earlier, most also predating the warning, and are presumably not very actionable any more. The newer two edits, linked to in the request, may have been intended to present the conspiracy theories (for which and their proponents I have no sympathy at all) in a favorable light - but, taken by themselves, they do not seem to be objectionable: they are concerned with apparently reliable sources and were not made in a disruptive manner. Whether these sources belong in the article seems to be worthy of good faith discussion; this content issue should not be settled by an arbitration enforcement request. Sandstein 17:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This request is premature. Both edits are a request for adding an edit that is discussed in a now hidden section here [40]. The edit dispute is more of where and how to present it with several editors agreeing that it can be in the article if those issues can be resolved. If an edit adding material that gives support to a conspiracy theory is always considered a violation of WP:ARB9/11#Discretionary sanctions for "promoting" 9/11 conspiracy theories regardless of how reliably it is sourced then we have a problem and the article will never be NPOV. The sanctions should only apply if edits are deliberately disruptive. Wayne (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, in reply to your un-closure below, is there evidence that Perscurator has engaged in meatpuppetry? Sandstein 16:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see, at http://www.911blogger.com/node/19833. I am evaluating this. Sandstein 16:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe so. Take a look at the cited sock puppetry case. There's no point to repeat the same comments here. Hut 8.5 knows the most about it. Perhaps you could ask him for clarification or expansion. (Unclosure--not exactly, just a shortcut rather than starting a new thread.) Jehochman ^Talk 16:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

All right, at that thread, we have the editor "Vesa", who admits to being Perscurator here, posting inter alia:

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Trade_Center_controlled_demoliti... It would be nice, though, to see more of us truthers there..."

"There has to be something that can be done to stop that. But what? Does anyone know a proficient "Wiki-lawyer"?"

This violates WP:TEAMWORK, a policy that provides that "Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate." Accordingly, I am of a mind to impose the requested topic ban, although not - given that this would be his first sanction - an indefinite one. What do others think? Sandstein 16:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want proof that Vesa=Perscurator, look at this edit and the page it links to. Furthermore I can see that Vesa had discussed influencing Wikipedia articles before on the same site: [41] I think something should be done here, since this is a clear violation of policy and campaigns to get people to edit articles could certainly be problematic, but since I've edited a lot in this area and interacted with Perscurator before I am definitely involved. Hut 8.5 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: The following, up to 17:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC), was moved from the "result" section below.

No action. No administrator or other user on this board, apart from the requesting user, appears to consider this to be actionable at this time. Concerning Perscurator, see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists. Sandstein 10:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't close this. There is an active discussion at WP:SPI concerning meat puppetry by Perscurator. If you review the facts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists, I think it is clear that sanctions are going to be applied. Perscurator has been found to be soliciting accounts off site to cause 9/11 disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 16:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, nobody even commented, except Wayne, who is certainly not an uninvolved editor. Let's hear what EdJohnston has to say. Jehochman ^Talk 16:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't know whether we need to ask EdJohnston. He apparently considers a mass enforcement (diff). Which evidence are you referring to with regard to the statement that "Perscurator has been found to be soliciting accounts off site", Jehochman? --Cs32en (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC) -- ok, the URL was give above while I was typing. --Cs32en (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Mass enforcement may be the only way to restore order. When people join a riot in progress, they share the blame for what happens. The evidence is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists in my evidence section, and the comments by others, specifically User:Hut 8.5. For the sake of your own reputation, it would be wise to distance yourself from those engaging in sock and meat puppetry, disruption and battlezone tactics. Jehochman ^Talk 16:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I see people citing content-related WP policy sound bites at random, without coherence and without any apparent thought about the underlying WP policy considerations. Administrative actions with regard to content are being justified by such flawed reasoning. First of all, I am distancing myself from such conduct. I am also not surprised that some people start rioting under these circumstances. --Cs32en (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In sock and meatpuppet cases, the usual practices accept that indefinite blocks may be doled out widely to anyone whose misconduct can be shown. It may happen that we hold back and issue shorter blocks or no blocks at all if it seems that it's not that big of a problem, or that things are returning to normal. Since we're in the presence of an extensive outside campaign to influence these articles to a certain POV, and there are no signs yet the campaign is abating, I would favor giving long blocks to those, like Perscurator, who can be shown to have helped organize the meatpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sock and meatpuppetry is a separate issue to the case that Jehochman has initiated. This case should concentrate solely on the current allegation made against Perscurator and these new claims should be dealt with in a separate case or it would be wrongly implied that Jehochman was justified in reporting him. This implication that Perscurator's edit was in violation would be to the detriment of legitimate editors who may be frightened off from contributing. Wayne (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We are not a bureaucracy, and the alleged meatpuppet activity falls within the area of conflict of the arbitral decision, so this is quite the proper forum. Sandstein 20:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

While it falls under the area of arbitral decision this is not what he was accused of. Deal with this case and start a new case for the new claims. Wayne (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Having just looked at the evidence for Perscurator has been found to be soliciting accounts off site to cause 9/11 disruption. I note that the evidence is two years old and appeared to not result in any volunteers to edit. I would also argue that the evidence is at the lower end of a violation as Perscurator makes it clear that he is talking about two edits he wanted to make that in themselves are not in violation of WP:ARB9/11#Discretionary sanctions nor were they disruptive if they were in the format he claims in the post. Also it should be noted that the sanctions were not in force two years ago so penalising him for violation should be based on his actions since and it is disingenuous to bring up evidence that is so old. If his actions since are in violation then I would support a ban but must oppose it at this time given what has been presented here. I also would like to point out that some editors who oppose his edits are responsible for ~~most~~ much of the disruption that results[42] which is why I am so passionate about neutrality and fairness in these cases. Wayne (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not ancient history from 2008. Perscurator was trying to recruit truthers to Wikipedia on April 16, only two days ago. Here is a comment that Hut 8.5 just made in the SPI case:

This blog post and its replies are trying to get people to add material to Wikipedia articles, including advice on wearing down editors removing the material in question. One of the people posting this is "Vesa", who edits Wikipedia as Perscurator. Hut 8.5 16:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

In the same thread, Vesa says It would be nice, though, to see more of us truthers there..., which is an attempt to recruit truthers to win the Wikipedia discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"Truthers" is of course a misnomer..they're not on Wikipedia to report what they find from reliable, scientifically peer reviewed articles, but are instead here to promote heresay and falsehoods from unreliable sources as well as misrepresentations gleemed from the reliable ones. We've seen this kind of behavior before...agenda driven CTers and others try to misuse this website to promote the ridiculous...which makes the website look ridiculous.--MONGO 04:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm very dissapointed with the ego driven POV pushing shown in this case (admin excepted, he's only bowing to consensus). Perscurator's "soliciting accounts off site" was in 2007 not 2008 as claimed and the instance in this blog post "only two days ago" is definately not soliciting unless those interpreting it are either illiterate or do not have English as their mother tongue. As for Hut 8.5's claim "its replies" support the soliciting can he please point out where? I can see nothing even resembling this. In effect an editor is topic banned solely for saying "It would be nice, though, to see more of us truthers there" on an offsite forum. Surely someone has a more legitimate example to justify the ban. If not then you clearly make the case for what is posted in those forums and are playing right into their hands by losing the moral highground. Wayne (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, Wayne. I think it is ridiculous that one is banned for expressing a one-sentence wish outside Wikipedia that there were more like-minded editors on Wikipedia. I was not aware that expressing such views could be used to penalize an editor, nor was I warned about it. I strongly feel that this incident was simply used as a pretext to get me banned.

Please allow me to quote my comments from the fateful outside thread, now that it has attracted your attention:

The latest Bentham online article cannot be referenced, as Bentham is such and such. So why can the earlier Betham online article by Jones et al still be linked?

When one points out that the latest article has been discussed in Danmark's TV2, they say that YouTube is not a realiable source.

When one shows the numerous references to the article in e.g. Danish mainstream and science media, they say they do not undestand Danish and that it is best to USE only English sources.

And so on. A question to all Bloggerists and fair-minded Wiki editors possibly reading this: What can be done about this unfairness?

I am appalled that some editors are allowed to exclude references based on such clearly illogical and dishonet arguments, while those who protest such "thug action" are banned based on any possible excuse. 88.113.224.40 (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP above for the evasion of Perscurator's block. Sandstein 20:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Perscurator[edit]

In view if the discussion above, I am blocking Perscurator for a month and topic-banning-him from 9/11 topics for a year, all for violations of WP:TEAMWORK as described above. Sandstein 06:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Tcaudilllg[edit]

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

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

Request concerning Tcaudilllg[edit]

User requesting enforcement: User8080 (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tcaudilllg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: {{{Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced}}}

Sanction or remedy that has been violated: {{{Sanction or remedy that has been violated}}}

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socionics&diff=286228958&oldid=285161105 of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: {{{}}}

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: {{{Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue}}}

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Topic ban for one of sides, I guess

Additional comments: I'm not a lawer and maybe use form of appeal in too free style.

Problem: Adding exotic non-typical theories in article Socionics

Some people (Tcaudilllg one of them, but similar problems may apear in that again, and again) persistently do war of corrections in article of Socionics. Socionics is typology described by Aushra Augustinavichute on base of Jungian typology. I think, that article should contain only theories of Jung, Augustinavichute, and also theories and methods popular among modern socionists. I removed descriptions of non-typical theories for practice of what is known as socionics now - Talanov's theories, author's theories of Bukalov, and some concrete description of methods where are many divergences between different socionist, leaving only general description. Plus sometimes usefull information is removed by these impudent incompetent vandals, wich naively and fanatically follow non-proved theories of next guru. Also some of them use theoretically incorrect naming for types (for ex, ENTp instead of ENTP), because qualities designating by these letters are the same in socionics and Myers-Briggs typology, - they say that these typologies have some different theories and that is why the same qualities in them should have different names (it's some kind of madness, maybe).

Is here anybody powerfull, who can help to resolve the situation, and better if he knows Russian language because almost all information is in Russian about socionics. I said my arguments, but there were no contrarguments from other side and I doubt that they whould change my opinion. Now, I do not want to discuss with these incompetent and fanatic people, so we need administrator who will decide what should be there, and should not to be there. I realy got tired to remove bullshit from that article and restore deleted by some incompetent people. Maybe some of men among administrators, when conflict will be solved, will be looking sometimes at situation with that article and bring some order there.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATcaudilllg&diff=286233820&oldid=284792819

Discussion concerning Tcaudilllg[edit]

Result concerning Tcaudilllg[edit]

Closed as not actionable. This is mainly a content dispute about a very obscure subject and does not require arbitration enforcement, because there seems to be no pertinent arbitration case to enforce. There may be user conduct issues present too, but these are not usefully presented here and would not belong on this noticeboard in any case. User8080, to resolve your dispute, please follow the steps described at WP:DR, which you do not seem to have done so far. Consider inviting a third opinion as described at WP:3O. Sandstein 16:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

----

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

Ohconfucius[edit]

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

Request concerning Ohconfucius[edit]

User requesting enforcement: —Locke Cole • t • c 04:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Temporary_injunction
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [43][44][45][46][47][48]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Delinking dates while injunction is in effect and issues remain unresolved. Unlinking dates also has the effect of removing the auto formatting, on which there is no consensus.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block
Additional comments: The RFC is over, but the matter of auto formatting remains unresolved, and there is still the matter of conduct and behavior of editors during the RFC.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The diff of the notification.

Discussion concerning Ohconfucius[edit]

I am a habitual editor of all the articles whose diffs are cited above, and am engaged in housekeeping task of aligning all dates to dmy/mdy, mostly with regard to ISO-formatted dates. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Locke Cole, how do these edits constitute, in your opinion, a "program of mass delinking"? I am unconvinced. Sandstein 05:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

They were all performed rapidly, some within less than a minute. I also did not provide every diff, there were others in the contribution history. This editor in particular also has a habit of flaunting this injunction (see his prior blocks for violating this injunction as well as the permanent block of Date delinker (talk · contribs)). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm also unconvinced the evidence presented demonstrates a "program of mass linking or delinking" has occurred. PhilKnight (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I am also unconvinced that the word "mass" is involved. I'd be more comfortable, however, if Ohconfucius were yet more cautious, an inch away from the running of a bot to remove autoformatting coding en masse. Locke Cole's incantation that there's no consensus should be taken with yet another grain of salt. And it's irrelevant here, anyway. What matters is the interpretation of the injunction text. Tony (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not provide an exhaustive list of diffs, as I didn't believe such a listing would be useful. Are you saying you want even more diffs, because I can surely provide more... I just figured admins would AGF that I wouldn't bring this here without cause. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The injunction against “mass delinkings” was intended to stop bot activity, which does thousands of edits per hour (see Lightbot history and scroll to the bottom). Minor manual editing like this has always been permitted. Besides, the injunction against bot delinking will be lifted soon and this specious complaint will be moot anyway. The complainant, Lock Cole, knew all this before coming here. Greg L (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Care to refactor/remove/strike the last line of your comment there? Accusing another user of bad faith is not only poor form, but entirely pointless in this context.--Tznkai (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Greg L (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Greg is being cranky today. If it weren't bad manners to do so, I'd strike through both his imputation of what goes on in Cole's head and his pre-empting of what would be a decision by the arbitrators. Tony (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Trying to approach this neutrally, I would say there's two problems in OC's edits:

Unlike others who have been brought forward but no action taken, where the date delinking was usually done in conjunction with other article cleanups, these edits (and several others, I spot-checked the contribution) are primarily to delink date with maybe one additional non-date link removed per normal linking requirements. The edit summaries are clear that these are to do something with dates.
The injunction, while calling against a program of mass linking/delinking, does not limit this to just bots or scripts, and so the fact that he has done at least 2 batches of 20 such articles in a row over the last couple of days looks to me like it passes the duck test. I AGF that OC's contributions are all being done by hand, but as per the wording of the injunction and the intent from the first point, this would see to fall under it.

I don't think a block is necessary, but it should be affirmed that this action is against the injunction, so that further engagement in this fashion can bring about another. --MASEM (t) 12:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% with what Masem wrote. Seeing only six links cited by Locke, I didn’t quite realize it was 20 articles. Perhaps it would be better, Ohconfucius, if you cooled your jets somewhat so we spend less time here? Greg L (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As he's been blocked previously for this, and had his alt account (Date delinker (talk · contribs)) indefinitely blocked for violating this injunction, I felt simply warning him wouldn't be the most effective course of action. However, at this point, a block would be purely punitive. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Ohconfucius[edit]

Ohconfucius advised to more cautious in delinking dates until the injunction is lifted. PhilKnight (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Robertredfern (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved

Worth watching, under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy and related cases. He appears - or at least claims to be - to be the author of several books promoting various substances. He's doing a bit of self-promotion, replacing articles with samples from his books, that kind of thing. I think a lot of his contributions have been deleted with the articles. Probably not necessary to act yet, but I think a few more eyes would help. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I am marking this as resolved. Shoemaker's Holiday, this page is for specific and actionable enforcement requests only, as described in {{Arbitration enforcement request}}. Your message above is not actionable. Sandstein 15:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr Taz[edit]

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

Request concerning Mr Taz[edit]

User requesting enforcement: O Fenian (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: Mr Taz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: Version reverted to revert one revert two revert three (third revert made after being notified of this discussion)
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Violation of 1RR, two reverts in less than 24 hours
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Discretion of administrators dealing with this
Additional comments: Despite me explaining on the talk page why his edits were problematic (see Talk:North-South divide in the United Kingdom#Ireland and map I was reverted without an edit summary or explanation on the talk page. Editor was made aware of the sanctions here, and it is not unreasonable for an editor to accept that adding unsourced and contentious information about The Troubles to another article falls under the scope of the sanctions without a further notification.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [49]

Discussion concerning Mr Taz[edit]

The case certainly seems actionable. But I'd appreciate it if someone could explain to me why the section Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case is an enforceable arbitral remedy. It does not seem to be part of a decision voted upon by the committee and appears to be drafted with less than the usual care. Sandstein 20:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, O Fenian, you have made two rapid reverts on the same page, [50] and [51]. Why should you not be sanctioned too? Sandstein 20:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I have been informed, if you make two edits in a row it is one revert, as there is no literal difference in making one edit or two edits in sequence. That is what the wording at WP:3RR says too "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert". O Fenian (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

True. Sandstein 20:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The link Sandstein is referring to is not part of the formal case remedy voted on by the arbs in the case. It is part background and part observation that I wrote and should be treated as such. It's in the log section, not the decision section. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Rlevse. If there are no objections, I intend to close this request because there seems to be no arbitral remedy to enforce here. Sandstein 21:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not object to the closing of this request, largely because the disruptive editing has ceased. However this development seems rather disturbing. Editors have generally worked well under the 1RR restriction, and to have it removed will only cause more edit warring and less discussion. O Fenian (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No 1RR sanction is removed by the closing of this request. Rather, it turns out that there never was an ArbCom-imposed 1RR sanction in the first place. If such a sanction is seen as desirable, it must first be sought through a request for arbitration. Sandstein 21:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion continuing in the section above as requested. O Fenian (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The sanction or remedy that has been violated per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case which states that: All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. This is clearly illustrated with Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy. Version reverted to revert one revert two revert three (third revert made after being notified of this discussion).--Domer48_'fenian' 21:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As explained by its author Rlevse above, that section is not an enforceable arbitral remedy. (If further discussion on this subject is desired, please let's do so in the section concerning The Maiden City, above, so as to avoid duplication.) Sandstein 21:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that if this remedy is not enforceable then we should put Mr Taz on 1RR/week probation per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Probation_for_disruptive_editors. Kevin (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

After giving this some thought, I believe it may just be a case of an enthusiastic editor lacking in competence that has stumbled into making contentious edits unwittingly. Take his (hopefully soon to be deleted) upload of File:Irish North-South divide.png, which he inserted into an article actually claiming the area in blue was Northern Ireland (for the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with the actual division see File:Ireland-Capitals.PNG). That does not strike me as the action of someone being knowingly disruptive, more ignorantly disruptive. O Fenian (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Mr Taz[edit]

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

Cs32en[edit]

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

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

Request concerning Cs32en[edit]

User requesting enforcement: Jehochman ^Talk 20:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: Cs32en (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: WP:ARB9/11
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: The user is a virtual single purpose account that tendentiously argues on behalf of 9/11 conspiracy theories. They came here and immediately dove into the conflict, disputed the applicability of WP:V and WP:NOR, refused advice from experienced community members, argued to modify policy, and engaged in battlezone tactics.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Topic ban from 9/11 pages until they gain more experience and learn about Wikipedia policies.
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Comment by Cs32en[edit]

I have outlined my view of the situation with regard to 9/11-related articles and the ongoing content-related disagreements in a comment to a recent request by Jehochman to amend the prior arbitration case regarding September 11 conspiracy theories. It is sad to see that Jehochman is now requesting administrative sanctions against me, instead of engaging in a discussion on the issues at hand. I will of course comment here on any specific accusations Jehochman may bring forward with regard to my editing. --Cs32en (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You're a single purpose account that refused to heed advice about violations of WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:UNDUE. You're operating in an area of the encyclopedia that has been repeatedly disrupted by single purpose accounts. Discretionary sanctions were made available to control disruption. Will you change your editing to follow content policies, or are you going to continue the same pattern of editing? Jehochman ^Talk 21:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge had removed a reference with a broken link today at 13:23, adding a {{fact}} tag. This information had been in the article, basically unchanged, since Sept. 23, 2008. I have supplied a working link at 15:24, with a minor correction at 15:27. You have removed the entire sentence, including the reference, at 15:31. (This edit started your sequence of 14 edits in 40 minutes, removing over 10% of the article without any discussion on the talk page. You also did not consider waiting if a more suitable source could be found for the information.) At 16:23, I provided a reference to the content of the website of NIST, a government agency. You removed the sentence and the reference again at 18:54.

I'd also like to point out that my previous edits to any 9/11-related articles on the English Wikipedia have been on April 9, and that I have made 8 edits on 9/11-related pages on the English Wikipedia altogether. I have edited on various topics, including 9/11-related articles, on the German Wikipedia, and continue to do so. My contributions there have been received in a constructive and friendly way, and I have not been involved in any administrative processes there.

I have not edited any 9/11-article on the English Wikipedia since April 9, because any edits would have been reverted -- and the fact that they would have been reverted would have probably been used as perceived evidence that my editing would be disruptive. I hope that the rather serious issues on the interpretation of the policies relevant in the context of the 9/11-related articles can be resolved, so that everyone can contribute in a constructive and friendly atmosphere to the encyclopedia we are building.

Jehochman, please refrain from characterizing your opinion as "advice", when it is obvious that there is a substantial disagreement over the interpretation of relevant Wikipedia policies with respect to the context of these articles.--Cs32en (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no bona fide dispute over interpretation of Wikipedia policies. Every single editor who is not a single purpose account has supported my position in the discussions at Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, including User:Arthur Rubin, User:Hut 8.5 and User:Tom harrison. You're the one who's being obstructive and tendentious. Jehochman ^Talk 00:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Transcluded text from Cs32en user talk page

Arbitration enforcement

I have started a thread at WP:AE about your editing. Feel free to comment. Jehochman ^Talk 20:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd really rather that you weren't topic banned. All you need to do is acknowledge that 9/11 is a troubled area of editing, and that you'll seek out feedback from uninvolved editors. You don't need to listen to me. Feel free to get advice from anybody else who has had substantial experience on en-wiki. I'd recommend you take a tour of the place and edit a diversity of articles to get a more representative view of how things work here. Jehochman ^Talk 00:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the reference to the unrealiable CNN story about "box-cutters" has been removed by MONGO, after a rather difficult discussion, in which an editor who read about the policy issues on the WP:V talk page had become involved. You might have noticed that I haven't changed anything in any 9/11-article from April 9 until today, and I have received a lot of feedback during this time. So the allegation that I would not seek out feedback from anyone who wants to join in the discussion seems rather strange to me.

I am acknowledging that 9/11 is a troubled area of editing (I have never claimed anything to the contrary), and I'll continue to seek out feedback from uninvolved editors (as well as from involved editors). --Cs32en (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Will you test the waters with a few other articles? If you have concerns about reliability of sources, WP:RSN is a great place to ask for help. For questions about undue weight (probably what MONGO was concerned about), there is WP:NPOVN. If you will take concerns to the noticeboards and follow whatever advice appears to be the consensus, I see no need for any arbitration enforcement, and I'll agree to remove my request. Jehochman ^Talk 00:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This thread has been copied from User talk:Cs32en at the time the A/E request was withdrawn. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. --Cs32en (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Cs32en[edit]

Cs32en just referred to my editing as a "rampage".[59] That's not how WP:AGF works. I already warned them about that earlier today.[60] Jehochman ^Talk 20:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Cs32en[edit]

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

I am withdrawing this request as Cs32en has provided assurances on their talk page that satisfy my concerns. Jehochman ^Talk 00:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For transparency, the conversation referred by Jehochman immediately above may be reviewed here. –xeno ^talk 21:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Ce107 and ARBMAC[edit]

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

Resolved: Sandstein 05:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ce107 (talk · contribs), aka 79.166.2.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 79.166.48.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), ostensibly a new user but with intimate knowledge of prior disputes that marks him as a likely reincarnation of something, has launched into a spree of personal attacks over Greek national issues, against myself and several other editors ("goons" [61], ("Oh I do enjoy insulting people" [62]). Could somebody apply good old WP:ARBMAC (the original) ? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked for 1 week for personal attacks, and left an ARBMAC warning. I did not log the block as I see it as a straight NPA block. Kevin (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Viridae[edit]

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

Request concerning Viridae[edit]

User requesting enforcement: Hipocrite (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: Viridae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Parties_admonished_and_instructed & Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Parties specifically instructed section 2.iv.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [63]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: As part of this case, "Viridae has agreed to refrain from reverting any of JzG's administrator actions in the future." Viridae reverted one of JzG's adminstrator actions. Viridae should uphold his pledge and continue to avoid JzG.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Warning
Additional comments: I civily requested that Viridae not further revert JzG's adminstrative actions on his talk page. He incivilly rebuffed me, with [64].
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning Viridae[edit]

I was told to come here by an adminstrator- "Take it to WP:AE if there is a problem, but at present we just need to handle the existing parties to the case." Hipocrite (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a frivolous request. The arbitration decision in question referred to an agreement by Viridae not to reverse administrative actions of JzG. However, that agreement substituted for a proposed ruling that would have instructed Viridae not to reverse such decisions except upon discussion and consensus; further, the acting admin on the blacklisting, the one who closed the most recent discussion, was not JzG, it was Beetstra. This is discussed at length at the arbitration evidence page; Hipocrite just removed the entire discussion, then, when reverted (by me), removed his name and all his comments changing the section head to attempt to hide his actions, 'nuff said. --Abd (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't engage in forum shopping. You already raised this issue at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG. Jehochman ^Talk 18:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Abd and Jehochman. This request should be closed. PhilKnight (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Viridae[edit]

No action taken. PhilKnight (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Johninwiki[edit]

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

Request concerning Johninwiki[edit]

User requesting enforcement: Jehochman ^Talk 12:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: Johninwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: Advocating conspiracy theories
How can the importance of this section be justified by other than the personal interest of certain administators?
Persistent attempts to add original research by synthesis
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: This account was registered on April 22, and appears to be mimicking the behavior of other accounts that were previously banned from editing 9/11 pages. This single purpose account was formally warned about the possibility of sanctions.[65] It continues to espouse conspiracy theories, assume bad faith of other editors, and tries to use YouTube as a source.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Topic ban from 9/11 pages.
Additional comments: I will ask a Checkuser to look at this one.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [66]

Discussion concerning Johninwiki[edit]

What other banned accounts do you mean? Sandstein 13:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Those listed as having been sanctioned at WP:ARB9/11, especially User:Bov and User:Tachyonbursts, and also the meat puppets identified at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists. Jehochman ^Talk 13:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone who not believes the official 9/11 stories get listed here ? - Johninwiki (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I was once listed here, though the editor who did that received a severe sanction and the complaint was dismissed. You can list anybody you like, as can any other editor. Just make sure there is merit to your complaint. Jehochman ^Talk 14:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so this not only happens to newcomers. To your above statement that I regard Youtube videos as reliable source this is not true. The facts I proposed for inclusion in the article have been NIST sources only. I think its eligible to update existing explanations with newest research results. RxS confirmed that already. Also I would like to mention that the portion I proposed as additional information for the article was written objective and didn't include any CD/conspiracy theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johninwiki (talk • contribs) 16:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The last diff shown does indeed show a lack of understanding of the Original Research policy, however, this could just be a newbie mistake. If you're interested Johninwiki, I was accused of being a sock by Jehochman, so you're in good/bad/indifferent company. (delete as appropriate) PhilKnight (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that Phil. Jehochman ^Talk 05:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the last diff is as follows: NIST has published a report, on which WP:RS sources have reported. So we have this report in the article. Now NIST has corrected the report, but there are no WP:RS sources on the correction as of this moment. We thus have a misleading information in the article but no WP:RS material for the correct information. I don't know whether there is a specific guideline for such situations or whether the information needs to be thrown out altogether in such a case. Cs32en 20:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The edits reported in the "request" section are all to the article talk page and are not prima facie disruptive. We do not sanction people for suggesting changes to articles, even where we might disagree with the proposed changes or consider them contrary to policy. The edits, as such, are not sanctionable.

On the other hand, I agree with the assessment that this is a single purpose account for whose conduct sock- or meatpuppetry might be a reasonable explananation. What do others think? Sandstein 20:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree this might be a newbie. The problem is we've seen anusually large amount of socks and meat puppet account recently. Moreover, the account is supporting and being supported by other tendentious accounts. We cannot give banned users a free pass to create new accounts to circumvent bans. Perhaps Checkuser could help. Jehochman ^Talk 22:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The User:Johninwiki account was created right after a topic ban was issued to User:Perscurator / Vesa. Same topic interests (controlled demolition + WTC7). Johninwiki's first edit was to ANI [67], and second edit to setup his user page [68]. (though apparently he/she was editing as an IP) Certainly, Johninwiki is not a new user and my suspicions point to Perscurator, or possibly one of his meatpuppets but most likely a sock. --Aude (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If that IP is Johninwiki and the location of the IP reflects the user's geograpical location then they aren't even on the same continent as Perscurator. Hut 8.5 10:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think meat puppetry is a more likely explanation. It would not be unduly burdensome to ask single purpose editors to step away from the hotly disputed 9/11 articles and do a bit of editing elsewhere for a few weeks. If they are seriously interested in Wikipedia, they'll be able to edit other topics. If they are only here to advocate for a particular point of view on 9/11, we'd probably be better off without their participation. Jehochman ^Talk 19:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Many editors have a more or less strong view on the subject they are editing on. They are not paid, so they edit those articles that they are interested in. What's important is not what the think or advocate, it's what is in the actual edits on the article's page. (For example, your recent edit summary "We don't cite bigfoot believers for evidence of bigfoot" is of course also evidence of advocating a particular viewpoint—the policy aspect of that sentence can be expressed in a neutral way, and it was not applicable anyway in that case, as the claim was not about evidence of "bigfoot", but "XY believes in bigfoot".) Cs32en 00:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there's anything to debate here, after saying Wiki administrators act as puppets of the US government [69] he should be gone in my opinion. Accusing editors here of covering up mass murder should be enough. He's certainly not here to create an encyclopedia and just as clearly he's here to push a POV. Trying to argue that away is just empty rhetoric. RxS (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Johninwiki[edit]

I am indefinitely blocking Johninwiki for the edit cited by RxS. Accusing Wikipedia editors of taking part in an alleged murderous conspiracy is quite beyond the pale. To cover the eventuality that he is unblocked, I am also indefinitely topic-banning him from 9/11-related articles, because his conduct indicates that he is not here to contribute to this topic from a neutral point of view. Sandstein 05:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Wowest[edit]

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

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

Request concerning Wowest[edit]

User requesting enforcement: Jehochman ^Talk 18:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: Wowest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [70]Revising *DISHONEST* deletion by Ice Cold Beer.See talk. [71]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Adding weasel words. Claiming fringe theorists are "scholars". Belligerance towards good faith editors trying to restore WP:NPOV and WP:V. Wowest was topic banned from 9/11 previously from April 22, 2008 until June 1, 2008. They are fully on notice that these sorts of editing tactics are unacceptable.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Topic ban of appropriate length
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [72]

Discussion concerning Wowest[edit]

This dispute seems to be about

whether deleting the word "other" in the sentence "These conclusions are widely rejected by other scholars." would imply that the person who has published these conclusions (Dr. Steven Jones) would not be a scholar and
whether retaining the word "other" would amount to inserting weasel words or would be necessary as a clarification.

According to the source (CBS, Aug. 6, 2006), Jones was at the time "a tenured physicist at Brigham Young University" (he is now Professor emeritus). Cs32en 19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Cs32en. If any other editors have comments to offer regarding this complaint, they are free to do so in this section. I'm currently looking into the matter, and will offer a result shortly.

In the meanwhile, a query: has Wowest been offered any guidance on how to amend his editing habits, in accordance with the requirements set down by the discretionary sanctions remedy? I am aware he was banned from editing the 9/11 subject area in 2008 for disruptive editing, but has he recently been "counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines"?

AGK 20:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a relatively new editor so I don't like to weigh in on these sort of matters but title of Wowest's talk page post seems like a personal attack on Ice Cold Beer as he's critisizing an editor and not content [73]. I don't know if it's relevent to this discussion but Wowest also made a similar personal attack towards me a couple months ago on the talk page of the main 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article.[74] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wowest accuses Ice Cold Beer of being "*DISHONEST*" in the edit summary. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian refers to Prof. Jones and the other people mentioned in the paragraph of the article as "scholars" [75]. Cs32en 22:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that The Guardian article was written 3 days before Jones was stripped of his classes and placed on leave[76] and six weeks before his resignation.[77] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Prof. Steven Jones maintains a website provided to him by Brigham Young University which clearly says "Steven E. Jones. Retired Professor." He did not resign, he retired from the university. Cs32en 01:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post says he resigned.[78] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It also says, in the same article, "His retirement is effective Jan. 1." In fact, it uses "resigned" once, and "retire" or "retirement" three times. Cs32en 02:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Resignation and retirement are not mutually exclusive. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we have both explained the relevant arguments with regard to the content dispute at hand. This content dispute is closely related to the A/E case, as one of the accusations is "insertion of weasel words". However, I will not continue this discussion here. Cs32en 15:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I only came here to point out that the title of Wowest's talk page post is a personal attack and also to point out that Wowest made a similar post against me a couple months ago.[79]. We got side-tracked on the content dispute with this edit.[80]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few diffs showing past efforts to guide this editor away from disruption:

They seem to have had no impact. Other attempts may have been made on article talk pages. Jehochman ^Talk 23:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, can you explain to me why you are referring to other individual editors as "they": "They came here", "They have a long history", "They are fully on notice"? This approach appears to me as de-personalizing and offensive. Cs32en 23:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't assume bad faith. "They" is gender neutral for "he or she". Jehochman ^Talk 03:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The American English Usage Panel that determines dictionary definitions in the U.S., by majority agreement, rejects the use of they. Using "they" for he, she or it is considered "disrespectful" of grammatical rules concerning pronoun agreement. Using "other" preceding the word scholars in that sentence is also correct grammar as it avoids false implications of the subjects status. Wayne (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Scholars^[who?] or Virtually all scholars would be a better edit than other scholars, assuming there is a source for that.

I accept your explanation that you intended to address the editors by the singular they. The singular they usually follows a non-specific indefinite and is generally not being used as the grammatical subject of a sentence. Cs32en 04:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? I try to avoid the singular they, but it has come in to common usage in the English language. This is merely a distraction from the matter at hand; Wowest is a disruptive editor who has been disciplined before which has clearly not improved his behavior. I trust that the closing administrator will reward Wowest with his indefinite topic ban and he will not be a problem for editors trying to improve 9/11-related articles. Good riddance. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. I asked for input on the wider issue; please focus on that, rather than calling out non-existent issues in the wording of other editors' comments. AGK 18:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The question whether certain people should be described as "scholars" does not call for further discussion here because it is a content dispute, whereas discretionary sanctions are intended to address conduct problems. The "Revising *DISHONEST* deletion" edit summary is incivil, but I have not yet seen evidence that it is characteristic of a pattern of behavior (which would call for sanctions) and not an isolated incident (which would not). Sandstein 08:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Wowest would agree to tone down the rhetoric and avoid moving articles away from WP:NPOV. That might sway the opinions of some observers. Jehochman ^Talk 13:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Wowest[edit]

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

I will preface this closure with two statements: (1) in the course of my administrator duties, I tend to extend extreme leniency; (2) the result of this complaint is one which extends great leniency to Wowest.

Wowest's editing in the 9/11 subject area is concerning in a few aspects: whilst his interest in the subject has given rise to a wide array of improvements to articles pertaining to it, it could also be argued that it has resulted in an element of bias entering into the content of his edits. Editors should be aware that, if they find themselves unable to write neutral, factual articles—most especially in subject areas that they are keenly interested in—then they ought to be not contributing to that subject area at all. Wowest: please take note of that entire sentence; and, if you feel you can't write accurate and unbiased 9/11 articles, then withdraw from contributing to the subject area at all (lest you be removed by means of a topic ban).

With regards to the specific incident which prompted this complaint, I'm willing to extend leniency—in light of the ambiguities of the sources, due to the confusion over the timing of the "retirement / resignation incident", to assume good faith, and to conclude that Wowest was not, in making this edit, deliberately altering the content of the article in a way that, (a) skewed it towards a particular bias, and/or (b) [hence] made the article inaccurate.

To resolve this complaint, I'm extending no restrictions on Wowest, based on the evidence presented in this complaint. I am, however, issuing a formal, final warning to Wowest: if he, in any article in the 9/11 subject area, (a) edits disruptively; or (b) introduces biased, inaccurate, or poorly sourced material, he can expect to be banned from editing 9/11 articles. (If a complaint is brought against him in the future, I ask that I be alerted to it, so that I may present my individual input on it.)

On a closing note, I ask—probably in vein, what with this subject area's contentious history; but, I ask nonetheless—that all editors contributing to 9/11 articles remember that we're trying to build a project which benefits our readers (by presenting them with fully-sourced, accurate, and up-to-date information), rather than one which suits whatever rendition of events we believe in or whatever biases we happen to hold.

I hope this provides some degree of resolution to the debate surrounding this complaint.

AGK 23:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

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

WLRoss[edit]

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

Request concerning WLRoss[edit]

User requesting enforcement: Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: WLRoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: If this article is only about what reliable sources want to report about conspiracy theories maybe it's time to leave and start a new article about what conspiracy theorists themselves believe so that readers will at least know all the relevant information...
Attempts to add original research by way of synthesis
Tendentious attempts to support the addition of unverified info to Wikipedia
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: The first diff sums it up nicely. The editor uses Wikipedia as a soapbox to espouse conspiracy theories. They have a long history of making such comments. Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Topic ban.
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [81]

Discussion concerning WLRoss[edit]

The second edit cited above, as an attempt to introduce WP:OR, reads: "While watching footage of the collapse of WTC 7, CBS News anchor Dan Rather said "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite."^[1]

^ The curious tale of the 'other' WTC tower Calgary Herald March 26, 2007

It's a statement of a news anchor, and the notability is established by reference to a third-party WP:RS source. It may not be relevant to the article, but that would be a content dispute, not a behavioural matter. Cs32en 15:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The statement is being used by inference to suggest that Dan Rather supports the controlled demolition hypothesis. He does not. That content is pure synthesis unless we have a secondary source that connects it to the controlled demolition theory. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I neither said nor inferred any such thing. The other editors were arguing for it's deletion on the premise that he was not talking about controlled demolition. I stated that, when taken in context with what the other reporters said to him, Jennings WAS talking about CD as can be seen from my post, I made no claim he believed it. My only argument was exactly what I said in Talk- he said it in reply to a suggestion of controlled demolition which supports that that was what he meant.
In reply to the first diff: What is the problem with suggesting another article? I had civil comment from other editors including two of your supporters. Why would I want to "espouse conspiracy theories" when I don't believe in them which is made clear in my user page and supported by my posted rejections of including conspiracy theory content in the "September 11 Attacks' and "Collapse of the World Trade Center" articles?
To reply to the first accusation: I never tried to add anything at all as it was already in the article and had been for a very long time. It had been deleted, according to the edit comment, for having no cite so I replaced it and added a reference (The Calgary Herald).
To reply to the second accusation: A fact tag was placed against a claim that already had a cite so I removed it. This is supported by my edit comment "..Already one cite and a search finds another 10,000+ mostly 911truth related so the premise is not disputed..". I fail to see how this can be construed as "support(ing) the addition of unverified info to Wikipedia".
I made these edits before they were brought up in Talk as a dispute and I have not edited the article since. Wayne (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The 3rd diff is a problem. If you can add a reliable source, then you should do so. Otherwise, you should leave the tag in place. Removing the tag, without adding a source is unacceptable. Saying the 'premise is not disputed' shows a lack of willingness to edit in accordance within community norms, so I think a ban would be appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The hostility[82] and accusations of censorship[83] make WLRoss one of the more difficult editors to work with. I brought this to his attention and he replied here:[84] Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hostility: An editor put a fact tag on the paragraph to which I replied I'd find a source for it in a few days. He then deleted it with the comment he could not find a source which appeared to be disruptive. I found a source in seconds. It can be frustrating when editors do not do the research to back their claims and ignore you but I do not feel I was any more hostile than some of the editors here who get no complaint for often much worse and I doubt anyone can find many instances where I was that frustrated so it is not as if it's a problem.
Censorship: I accused no one. The argument was being made that the issue was not a part of CT. If the opposite is the case of course it would be censorship. That is probably the only time I have ever used the word since I first joined WP
My reply: I don't have to defend it as it backs up what I said above and that I acted in good faith. Wayne (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning WLRoss[edit]

WLRoss banned from articles and talk pages which relate to the events of September 11 for 1-week. PhilKnight (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Abtract[edit]

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

Request concerning Abtract[edit]

User requesting enforcement: Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that Calsiber is a personal friend of Haines (see his user page) so presumably he is continuing Haines' bullying vendetta at his offline request. Abtract (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Abtract (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: [85]
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender_of_God&diff=290549704&oldid=290427190
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: interacting with Alastair Haines
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): as per case (lengthening block)
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [86]

Discussion concerning Abtract[edit]

Result concerning Abtract[edit]

Abtract has been blocked for one month by Kevin (talk · contribs). Sandstein 07:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have blocked for 1 month, being the maximum available in the remedy. The diff noted above was sufficient of itself, but the spectacular failure of good faith by Abtract above sealed the deal.

Jehochman noted at the time if Abtract's last block that discussion regarding a community ban would be in order at the next violation. I may start that discussion at WP:ANI if I have time. Kevin (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

76.93.86.242[edit]

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The subject of this complaint has been restricted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). His editing is now subject to revert limitation (revert parole), editing supervision (probation), and civility restriction (civility parole), as detailed here. Should the anonymous editor violate any of these restrictions, a report may be filed on this page (citing diff's of the incriminating edits), whereupon an administrator will take action. AGK 19:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Request concerning 76.93.86.242[edit]

User requesting enforcement: brand спойт 20:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: 76.93.86.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Edit warring considered harmful
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], ethnic insult
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: A single-purpose IP, currently editwarring in We Are Our Mountains
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block or any other sanction at admin's discretion
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [94]

Discussion concerning 76.93.86.242[edit]

The article has been semi-protected, so I'm not sure if a block is required. Also, the editor wasn't notified of the editing restrictions prior to the report being filed. PhilKnight (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agree now. Periodical check of contribs could be sensible though as s/he is warned now. brand спойт 10:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning 76.93.86.242[edit]

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

The subject of this complaint has been restricted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). His editing is now restricted—specifically, he is placed on:

Revert limitation (revert parole);
Editing supervision (probation); and
Civility restriction (civility parole)

—as detailed here.

Should the anonymous editor violate any of these restrictions, a report may be filed on this page (citing diff's of the incriminating edits), whereupon an administrator will take action.

AGK 19:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Teachings of Prem Rawat[edit]

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Both editors blocked for 24h by Sandstein. AGK 15:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

All Rawat articles have been placed under an editing restriction:

3.1) The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to an editing restriction for one year. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period.

Please check if the following edits by Will_Beback (talk · contribs) and Pergamino (talk · contribs) violate the restriction:

Will_Beback (talk · contribs)

Second diff restores identical wording to that established by the first diff, 5 days after the first diff.

Pergamino (talk · contribs)

First diff moves two paragraphs and adds material to them, and adds a new unrelated paragraph. Second diff moves the identical two paragraphs as the first edit, but summarises them to just a single, shorter paragraph. Edits are on successive days.

Thanks. JN466 13:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that both users are in violation of the restriction with respect to the removal or addition of the "Former followers" section. Pergamino even briefly undid his offending revert in reference to the restriction at [95] but then re-did it again at [96]. I have blocked both users for 24 hours in accordance with the enforcement provision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Enforcement. Sandstein 16:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have also preemptively requested community review of the matter at WP:ANI#Prem Rawat enforcement action. Sandstein 16:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I dispute this interpetation of the remedy and the edits, and have requested a clarification from the ArbCom. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Prem Rawat 2. Will Beback talk 00:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Shutterbug[edit]

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

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

Request concerning Shutterbug[edit]

User requesting enforcement: The Legendary Shadow! (talk)13:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: Shutterbug (talk)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Scope_of_Scientology_topic_ban
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Statement_by_Shutterbug
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Section 3A of 'Scope of Scientology topic ban' states:

3A) Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth.

User has posted to the talk page of the arbitration case on Scientology, this is clearly a violation of the above terms of their topic ban.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): as per terms laid out in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Enforcement, user should be blocked for 1 month
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning User:Shutterbug[edit]

The user has self reverted so I'm not sure whether any action is required. PhilKnight (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It was his comment on the talk page of the arbitration case that I was referring to, I wasn't aware of any action on the Scientology article. The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless repeated or disruptive, I don't think that banning a named party to a RFAR from comment is a good idea, even after the close. Meanwhile, isn't launching AE complaints broadly concerning Scientology articles also topic-blocked under the "and so forth"? (To prevent continuing conflict by other means.) It's best to let all drop, and I'm sure that many admins are keeping an eye out for serious violations. (With that, out of here before I get smacked—but clarification of if the block also extends to AE actions as well would be nice.) AndroidCat (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, the requesting user above, The Legendary Shadow!, has been topic-banned by the same ArbCom (Diff). So I consider her enforcement request as another attempt to stir up trouble and unrest. As I noted on the ArbCom page (that is not an "article" per 3b) of the ArbCom "decision"): there are lies left in this case and that is why it will never get to rest until the discrimination issue is sorted out. Shutterbug (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning User:Shutterbug[edit]

Closed without action. This request is not actionable because the "request" section does not contain an actual diff of the conduct alleged to have violated an arbitration decision. Sandstein 06:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Wowest[edit]

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

Request concerning Wowest[edit]

User requesting enforcement: Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: Wowest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [97][98]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Wowest is canvassing new editors to a discussion[99] where he believes the new editors will be sympathetic to his cause.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Indefinite topic ban
Additional comments: Wowest has been a tendentious editor in 9/11-related articles for some time. Indeed, he has been banned before[100] and appeared on this page earlier this month, the result of which was a "formal, final warning" to Wowest by the closing administrator.[101] I will be notifying the closing administrator, AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), of this thread per his request. Update: done.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [102]

Discussion concerning Wowest[edit]

I would firstly express my concern that yet another complaint over Wowest's conduct is being presented to this noticeboard. I am unsure at this point whether the complaint has any substance (a point that I will explore in a little more detail below), but I would invite input from Wowest as to how he feels about being the subject of another complaint (even after my quite clear final warning a few weeks ago).

I would observe that the crux of this complaint seems, to my mind, to be that Wowest's conduct has constituted inappropriate canvassing of other editors. I copy for reference the summary table from Wikipedia:Canvassing, the project's behavioural guideline on this aspect of editor conduct:

	Scale		Message		Audience		Transparency
Friendly notice	Limited posting	AND	Neutral	AND	Nonpartisan	AND	Open
	↕		↕		↕		↕
Inappropriate canvassing	Mass posting	OR	Biased	OR	Partisan	OR	Secret
Term	Excessive cross-posting		Campaigning		Votestacking		Stealth canvassing

If sanctions are to be placed on Wowest's account as a result of this complaint, I would expect them to be because an administrator thinks his comments to other editors to be "inappropriate canvassing" (in one of its four shades—scale, message, audience, or transparency) rather than a "friendly notice." By extension, the question we ask ought to be whether Wowest's comments are negatively influencing editing in this subject area. I tentatively suggest that I think that may unfortunately be the case.

I would invite the input of other administrators (and, as above, Wowest) on this. AGK 15:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

After further review of Wowest's presence in this subject area, I am growing increasingly concerned about his editing there. I note my intention to pass sanctions on Wowest's account at the conclusion of this thread (although, as always, further input may give me cause to reconsider that intention). AGK 16:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that the user has not been following policy guidelines before, a limited sanction might have the effect that the user will look for the relevant guidelines before doing something that might be in violation of policy. I don't know whether such a form of "punitive-preventative" form of sanction exists or would be legitimate, however. Cs32en 16:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

By posting two messages to a partisan audience, Wowest (talk · contribs) has not followed WP:CANVASS. The user's messages were limited, neutral, and open. Wowest (talk · contribs) has apparently not been warned to stop the canvassing before this A/E request has been filed. There is damage to the editing process, but the damage is limited, as the canvassing can be taken into account when evaluating consensus. As sanctions are preventative, they should only be applied if editors continue a form of disruptive behavior after having been warned, or if they resume a form of behaviour about which they have already been warned previously. We certainly would be able to better judge about this case if the user had been warned before this request has been filed. A warning should generally be accompanied by advice on how to proceed without violating policy, i.e., in this case, the possibility of informing all editors who have contributed to related articles irrespective of their views on the issue. Cs32en 16:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Wowest has been consistently unhelpful in editing 9/11 topics. They were previously topic banned for 45 days. The inappropriate canvassing is just frosting on the cake. As an editor with first hand experience trying to improve these articles, I have suffered through a parade of single purpose, pro-Truther accounts with all their wikilawyering, endless pestering, and circular argumentation. This is a highly disturbed area where sanctions should be applied swiftly to prevent disruptive editors from driving off productive editors. Jehochman ^Talk 17:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The unpleasant editing environment to which productive editors to the 9/11 area are subjected is something that I'm quite concerned about, so I'm sympathetic to your comment. In an attempt to strike a balance between "swiftly" removing editors and being recklessly hasty, I'd anticipate this thread being closed by tomorrow afternoon (after input from any editors who wish to offer it). AGK 17:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Check the date when Wowest was originally topic banned. Nothing has changed since then. Why rush now? By all means, take your time and take care of the matter properly. Jehochman ^Talk 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like it if Wowest at least has a few days to respond, as he has not done so yet. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear AGK:

Thank you for your invitation to participate in this discussion.

I am a physically disabled Wikipedian. As such, editing is one of many things which I am unable to do consistently, for extended periods of time or on a daily basis, and this includes defending myself here.

I fully agree with Jehochman's last comment, beginning with "Check the date." I will attempt to reply competently to this matter at my earliest opportunity, and, to balance this, I agree not to edit any articles at all until this matter is resolved. Do you find that suitable?

Wowest (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If you would agree to refrain from editing the subject area in question until this thread has been closed, it would be appreciated, yes. However, I do feel that this matter is somewhat straight-forward: your editing, Wowest, has been a cause for concern for some time, and I think it inevitable that sanctions are going to be passed on your account.… Naturally, I'm open to be convinced otherwise, by your comments or those of other editors. AGK 13:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment I very recently became involved in the 9/11 related articles and I must say that the general atmosphere is not really constructive. To the extent that wowest made people aware that there was such a !vote he probably was the only one that made such efforts. It seems to me that WP:IDHT and policy shopping is par for the course. Even Ice Cold Beer seemed to ignore the sources that I and other editors had provided, you can see that at the time of his !vote I had listed 9 sources which I believed established notability, they have yet to be acknowledged or commented on. We also have the almost absurd situation where an editor, seemingly in all seriousness, is arguing for the deletion of 9/11 Truth Movement because it is a neologism. The bid for deletion was, I believe, in part sparked by the hitherto unsuccessful attempt to merge Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth into 9/11 Truth Movement and later renaming 9/11 Truth Movement to 9/11 Deniers. Despite repeated efforts to engage the editor he continued and made sweeping changes without prior discussion based on his misapprehension of WP:NEO. The worst thing is that none of the other editors who otherwise seem to have agreed with him on other changes challenged him on any of this, obviously they seem to know better than to vocally support it though. These tactics of attrition and wasting other editors' time are, in my opinion, inexcusable and should not be be something that we tolerate. Unomi (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(I moved the above comment to here from the "request" section.) Unomi, this request is about Wowest. To facilitate its processing, please limit your comments to matters related to his conduct. If you think other editors violated Wikipedia norms, please open a separate enforcement request related to them. Sandstein 05:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Wowest[edit]

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

Smith2006[edit]

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Smith2006 has been placed on notice by PhilKnight. AGK 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Request concerning Smith2006[edit]

User requesting enforcement: _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: Smith2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Personal attacks against a group of editors (Poles), creating an unpleasant atmosphere at affected article(s) - in other grounds, a battleground between Polish and (presumably) German editors
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): The user should be added to the Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#List_of_editors_placed_under_editing_restriction.
Additional comments: Request submitted by _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Notification diff
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning Smith2006[edit]

That is a persuasive request. The diffs provided show that Smith2006 is treating Wikipedia as a battleground by making references to "Stalinist propaganda" and the like. Unless convinced otherwise, I intend to impose a six month topic ban on Poland-related subjects, especially including issues related to the Polish or German identity of somebody or something. I have also warned Radeksz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for edit-warring on the same article, Jan Dzierżon. Sandstein 09:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- The user doesn't appear to have been previously notified of the discretionary sanctions, so I've left a templated notification on his user talk page. However, I agree with Sandstein about treating Wikipedia as a battleground, so an immediate block or ban could be appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  - I would agree with Sandstein and Phil that Smith's editing is alarmingly incendiary in the diffs cited, but would be inclined to say that a notification of the discretionary sanctions should be the full extent to which we take action on this complaint. Should an actionable complaint be brought against Smith to AE in the near future, I would be inclined to pursue Sanstein's suggestion and install a six month topic ban. AGK 13:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the lack of prior notification. We can close this thread now, I believe. Should the disruption continue, I (or possibly also PhilKnight and AGK) will expeditiously impose sanctions on request. Sandstein 16:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be willing to impose sanctions, yes. Closing thread as of this edit. AGK 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Deja vu, seen many times in the last years: an editor discovers the POV pushing conducted by Polish editors on English Wikipedia, and after some edit warring in which the editor is provoked into incivilities or 3RR, Piotrus tries to get the editor topic banned, edit restricted or blocked. In many cases he had been successful with this strategy, just like with me recently. I had barely taken part in that case, as I am tired of these shenanigans. Now, yet another inexperienced editor is targeted. Even if nothing is done, he might get driven away, like others before.

How about for a change, topic banning those users who for years are treating Wikipedia as a battleground, misusing it as a platform for their national (and personal) vanity? Like Piotrus, Radeksz, Molobo, Space Cadet, Poeticbent and others? Why not banning them from "Poland"-related subjects, especially including issues related to the Polish or German identity of somebody or something? How often have they been in the center of troubles, and how often have they gotten away, just liked Radek recently, with promising to behave nicely?

I say "Poland", as large areas annexed to modern day Poland have no Polish history prior to 1945, and some more areas have a mixed German/Polish history. The former, not the latter does apply to Johann Dzierzon who had nothing to do with Poland, save for his Silesian home, which for centuries prior to his birth had been part of Bohemia, Austria and Prussia, having been made part of modern day Poland decades after he died. Johann Dzierzon (not "Jan") was a Prussian/German citizen during all his life, as there was no Polish state during his lifetime. He studied at the German university in Breslau (not at the Austrian Polish-language one in Cracow), and he published in German, not in Polish. The Polish language works listed in the article had not been written by Dzierzon in Polish, they are mere translations by others into Polish, just like the translations into English and other languages. I had pointed [103] that out by quoting the authorship in Polish, so all Polish editors should know this by now. Yet, Radek simply deleted this from the article as (rv OR, POV). Some dubious Polish sources claim that Dzierzon self-described himself as a Pole, and Smith2006 is actually wrong in calling them "Stalinist propaganda", as these claims had been made before the era of Stalin, and what is worse, are still repeated in modern days. Simply shameful. -- Matthead Discuß 15:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Matthead, this forum is absolutely not the place to discuss content disagreements. It is also entirely unacceptable to misuse it to make sweeping accusations against other editors without proof in the form of diffs. If you can prove that other editors violated accepted Wikipedia norms of conduct in the Eastern Europe subject area, please file proper arbitration enforcement reports against them individually. If you continue to disrupt this or any other administrative forum with edits in the vein of the above, you may be sanctioned without further warning. Sandstein 16:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Smith2006[edit]

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

Smith2006 has been placed on notice by PhilKnight. I would hope that Smith's editing as of that notice would give no cause for complaint; in the event that it does, a thread should be opened on this noticeboard. AGK 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[1] The curious tale of the 'other' WTC tower Calgary Herald March 26, 2007

[1]

Arbitration enforcement archives
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50
51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70
71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110
111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130
131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150
151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170
171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190
191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210
211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230
231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250
251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270
This box: view talk edit