Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:20, 16 October 2012

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

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	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

Antidiskriminator

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

Request concerning Antidiskriminator

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBMAC

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 2 and Talk:Pavle Đurišić from 9/08/12 onwards, User:Antidiskriminator has created nearly two dozen separate sections on Talk:Pavle Đurišić about supposed deficiencies in Pavle Đurišić causing a great deal of disruption with only minor improvement to the article but until 03/10/12 refused to substantively edit in article space to address the supposed deficiencies, instead expecting the editors that had helped promote the article to MILHIST A-Class and FA to do so apparently in order to gather evidence that those editors are not abiding by WP:NPOV in relation to the general topic of Chetniks - Pavle Đurišić was a Chetnik. See also [1].
move to German-occupied Serbia 12/09/12 Started a second RM immediately after an RM was closed Not Moved. This RM was also closed (on 21 August 2012) with the result Not Moved. Disruption and failure to accept a lack of consensus for a title change.
[2] 29/09/12 Dominated this thread making observations about the alleged behaviour of editors opposing a title change. Disruption and failure to accept a lack of consensus for a title change.
[3] 10/09/12 Started another thread about the title, again making observations about the alleged behaviour of editors opposing a title change. Continued disruption and failure to accept a lack of consensus for a title change.
[4] 14/09/12 Started another thread about the title, again making observations about the alleged behaviour of editors opposing a title change. Same again.
[5] 18/09/12 Started another thread about the title, again making observations about the alleged behaviour of editors opposing a title change. Same again.
[6] 29/09/12 WP:WIKIHOUNDING but request here [[7] to stop has been ignored and the behaviour has continued, and escalated, with specific references being made to the lack of consensus for the RMs at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia.

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

Warned on [8] 19/10/10 by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) in relation to not accepting consensus at Skanderbeg - I know this is old, but I included it just to show that User:Antidiskriminator has been well aware of the ARBMAC sanctions for a long time and has prior form for not accepting consensus.
Warned on [9] 17/08/12 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) in relation to 3RR/edit-warring on Religion in Albania
Warned on [10] 02/09/12 by PRODUCER (talk · contribs) in relation to edit-warring on Pavle Djurisic
Warned on [11] 06/09/12 by ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs) in relation to edit-warring on Siege of Shkodra
Warned on [12] 23/09/12 by DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) in relation to disruption (ARBMAC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I consider User:Antidiskriminator has been highly disruptive across several articles which fall under the ARBMAC sanctions for a period of six weeks or more, including a complete failure to accept that there has been a lack of consensus for a title change. I should probably have reported their behaviour before this, but am a relatively new user and have not had much experience with filing reports, especially not at this level. I want to say up-front that I have found User:Antidiskriminator's behaviour very frustrating, and I may have strayed off the civility path on a couple of occasions due to that frustration and numerous provocations. I am aware that is no excuse and accept that I may be sanctioned myself for that, and will take any such sanction with good grace. However, I feel that since DIREKTOR's warning, the WP:WIKIHOUNDING has taken this beyond the bounds of what could possibly be acceptable and that, combined with User:Antidiskriminator's behaviour on a number of ARBMAC articles, makes it appropriate to file this report now. I just want User:Antidiskriminator to accept when there is no consensus for a move (or edit), stop disrupting articles with long lists of demands on the talkpage and expecting other editors to comply with their demands, and stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING me (which is in my view directly related to the failure to accept lack of consensus and continued disruption). I believe some form of coercion is necessary to get them to stop their disruption and related behaviour.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[13]

Discussion concerning User:Antidiskriminator

Statement by User:Antidiskriminator

After Peacemaker67 requested A-class review of Pavle Đurišić at WikiProject Serbia (diff) (where I am one of the most active members), I responded to his request and started being involved with this article (and many other articles about WWII in Yugoslavia, including major battles and offensives). Here is a list of my contributions to Pavle Đurišić article. I don't think my edits (of this or any other article) were "an endless succcession of tedious, unproductive squabbling" because they pointed out valid flaws and were used as a tool to improve the quality of the article. If I am wrong, I sincerely apologize.
My first edit of the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia was nine months before ‎Peacemaker67 started editing wikipedia. I tried to help resolving the name issue of this article and decided to give up on 25 September although I believe my efforts were constructive and supported by the majority of editors.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning User:Antidiskriminator

Comment by Athenean

I don't see anything remotely actionable in the limited evidence provided by Peacemaker, especially with respect to WP:HOUND. I think part of the problem is that Peacemaker is misunderstanding WP:HOUND. Extended talkpage discussions are not Wikihounding, if someone tires of a discussion the simplest and best thing to do is to leave. Providing links to talkpage threads is completely unhelpful and meaningless. I have interacted with Antidiskriminator in the past and have always found him to be model of civility and courteous behavior, even when he is the victim of incivil behavior, as is often the case. He has a clean block log and is always careful to provide sources for his edits. He is also highly skilled at finding sources difficult to access, and as such is a valuable contributor to this topic area. Athenean (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only wikihounding I see here is by Gaius Claudius Nero (bringing up year-old diffs, now that's wikihounding), not to mention accusations of bad faith and conspiracy theories. Athenean (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by WhiteWriter

I also dont find anything sanctionable here. Based on my previous experiences with User:Antidiskriminator, he may be regarded as great, highly relevant and good faithed editor, with great knowledge of wiki guidelines and usage of sources and references. Also, i never saw that he lost his temper, even for a bit, which is priceless. Diffs presented are unrelated to the WPHOUND. I also highly doubt that user is capable to do any guidelines breach, as it was presented. In the end, editor for example. Also, as i already stated on ANI, this AE is nothing more then try to eliminate opposing side in a dispute, in a previously successful traveling circus attack way, usually unrelated to the problem. Antid's numerous constructive propositions to solve the obvious problem with page Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia are obviously problematic for some. Therefore, i can expect several editors included in this problem to recall any problematic situation from the past and present, in order to fulfill this request. This is a example where content dispute can end, in a traveling circus caravan. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by PRODUCER

I found Anti's behavior at the Pavle Đurišić article to constitute tendentious editing and to be belligerent. After the article had been promoted to FA status for some time (28 August), Anti took his first personal A-class review [14] and then he cut up his points into sections on the article's talk page where he tried whatever tactic he could to remove information he personally disliked and push in information he does like, in essence throwing whatever can stick. After that he rehashed them twice [15][16] and posted them as reasons as to why the article should not be A class article! Reaching whatever reason he can no matter how baseless, unfounded, the long length discussion, or the numerous sections in which they were discussed:

Communist subordination:
- On 26 August, he brought it up in his initial review [17]
- On 24 August, since that failed, he brought it up again at the article talkpage [18]
- On 3 September, since that failed, he brought it up in his rehashed review [19]

Family/parents:
- On 15 August, he brought it up in his initial review [20]
- On 24 August, since that failed, he brought it up again at the article talkpage [21]
- On 3 September, since that failed, he brought it up in his rehashed review [22]
Iron Cross:
- On 22 August he claimed that there is a controversy [23]
- On 25 August, since that failed, he claimed that there was undue weight [24],
- On 31 August, since that failed, he attacked the source that supports the award. [25]
- On 3 September, since that failed, he stated all at once that it is disputed, that there's undue weight, and that the source used is unreliable in his rehashed review [26]
A song:
- On 26 August, he brought it up in his initial review [27]
- On 2 September, since that failed, he brought it up again at the article talkpage [28]
Berane:
- On 26 August, he brought it up in his initial review [29]
- On 2 September, since that failed, he brought it up again at the article talkpage [30]
- On 18 September, since that failed, again brought it up [31]

These are by no means the only diffs available, in many cases Anti takes one topic and interjects it while discussing another. To further his control of the talk page (in what I can only interpret as an attempt to WP:OWN it) he makes use of a "unresolved" template for every discussion in which he does not have a favorable outcome (no matter how long the matter was discussed or how weak his arguments) and reverts anyone who dares modify them. [32][33] To Anti users on the talk page are a blockade of sorts and continues to refuse to get the point and simply reiterates the same views and points he held previously through duplicate sections and discussions. The same editorial behavior can be found on the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article where with WhiteWriter he has attempted to push their POV (including that of PANONIAN who was banned on AE for his disruptive behavior [34]) continuously and over many redundant sections. His support of him is no surprise. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Greek editor aware of this discussion and vouching for Anti? Hmmm... --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ZjarriRrethues

The report summarizes Antidiskriminator's decorum breaches and editing very concisely. The major issue regarding Antidiskriminator is his denial to accept consensus which is followed by semi-"retaliatory" acts i.e. wikihounding among others. On Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia he kept starting new discussions on the same topics using different arguments every time as he couldn't gain approval. As that was becoming an ad infinitum situation he followed Peacemaker67 and disputed him on articles he had never shown any interest in(Pavle Durisic etc.). There's a long history of that particular kind of editing as evidenced by the ARBMAC warnings (first in 2010 for restarting the same debates against consensus; latest in 2012 for the same reasons) and edit-warring warnings.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does Antidiskriminator mean by the second part of his statement? The result of his RM was no consensus. Where does he base his belief that his proposal regarding the title issue was supported by the majority of editors?
That being said, source and especially RS abuse has been a major issue as Antidiskriminator uses them selectively and always insists that his sources are RS regardless of their extreme nature. For example, on Vulnetari (Albanian semi-collaborationist unit of WWII) he was using Smilja Avramov, a councillor of Milosevic and flagrant anti-semite who among others has written that Olaf Palme, JF Kennedy and Aldo Moro were all killed by the Trilateral Commission because they broke the vow of secrecy ...the destruction of Yugoslavia was a joint endeavour of the Vatican and the US establishment. Four (Peacemaker67, Aigest, PRODUCER, I) users who pointed out the nature of his sources got WP:IDHT responses about the arguments being unrelated to RS and that RSN was needed (Talk:Vulnetari#General comment). The wikilawyering was followed by an article he wrote on Smilja Avramov that essentially constitutes whitewashing as he labeled her a law expert and omitted everything controversial including her beliefs on the Protocols of Zion, her involvement in the Yugoslav Wars and most recently her decision to act as a defendant witness in the cases of Karadzic/Mladic. In fact, he chose to only use one source, which, in fact, doesn't mention her at all (given url).

An update in regard to recent edits by Antidiskriminator:
14:00, 1 September 2012: Antidiskriminator in a section on Pavle Durisic regarding his Iron Cross: You did not give me any time to present sources before you labeled my comment as original research. That was not polite nor constructive. Here are some sources which support information that there are claims that he actually did not receive Iron Cross ... General Milan Nedić, Том 2, Stanislav Krakov Antidiskriminator presents a work by Stanislav Krakov as a source.
09:46, 14 October 2012: Antidiskriminator in the same section on Pavle Durisic regarding his Iron Cross: Krakov was not historian and I did not propose to use him as source nor I dispute anything you wrote about Stanislav Krakov

--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gaius Claudius Nero

I have been Wikihounded by Antidiskriminator for more than a year (I considered retiring because of it) and never brought myself to reporting the constant offenses he had made against me. Below are some of what I perceived as violations which he had made against me since 2010 (out of what could be much more):

Talk:Albanian–Venetian War (1447–1448): Here you can see a constant barrage of WP:IDHT and the flood of messages constantly repeating the same points over and over again.
[35]: Here he is violating WP:Battle by bringing up an irrelevant topic (Harry Hodgkinson's reliability which we had debated on other topics) in order to trap me into making an admission that the source he mentions is unreliable, even though it had never before been mentioned in the talk page.
[36]: Here he is again violating WP:Battle by giving me an ultimatum for what he considered original research (for something which I think is WP:Common Sense) and violates the rules of cooperation (although I later changed it the way he asked me, something I could have done much more quickly if he did not try to trap me into an ultimatum).
[37]: Here he is violating WP:AGF by stating that I hid sources from him (although he later apologized).
Template talk:Campaignbox Ottoman–Albanian Wars: Here he is again violating WP:IDHT and refusing to cooperate with me even I signalled to him that I wanted to try to reach a consensus (Just so you know, I'm trying to reach a consensus with you...)
[38]: Here he violates WP:AGF and attacks me for a personal error, also showing blatant incivility.

Like I said, these are only a few of what could be more and they are the cases that I remember most because they are some of the earliest cases. There are many instances where he came into a talk page soon after I edited there for the FIRST time (eg. compare [39] to [40] and compare [41] to [42]), I assume from constantly checking my contributions log (although there could of course be other ways, but I could find more examples if requested). This is what WP:HOUND says: Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is definitely the impression that I got from his constant confrontation on most of the pages I work on (mostly ones with the medieval history). WP:HOUND also says this: The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. Although I hate to admit, the main reason I considered retiring from Wikipedia (even though I enjoyed it very much) was because I was constantly being Wikihounded by Antidiskriminator. Now that I see that I'm not the only one being Wikihounded, it is clear to me that a topic ban (maybe for three months which he might later be reconsidered) is the best means to rectify this situation, that is, of course, if the administrator is willing to consider it as such.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: It is interesting that Athenean is taking part in this since he rarely ever participated in the topics which Antidiskriminator is being reported for. If I may take a moment here to describe something which I came across when responding to one of Antidiskriminator's messages to me: this diff which leads to this looks like Athenean trying to recruit Antidiskriminator for his witch-hunt of Albanian sock-puppet accounts (many of which have been proven to be false). To me, it seems obvious why Athenean is defending Antidiskrimator here (who most often sparred with Albanian editors at the time), despite rarely participating in the discussions which Antidiskriminator participated at the time. I won't state it explicitly because I believe it is self-evident.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean says that I am a Wikihounder. I will fully disclose myself as I feel it is necessary: I saved these links from a long time ago in anticipation that I would file a report, but I never got around to it. If I was a true Wikihounder, I would not even include any of these and only include recent diffs. He also says I assume bad faith. I have tried to be as fair as possible (eg. I mentioned that he later apologized) and obviously, this is not entirely possible as I am a human being. (It seems like he is annoyed that I called him out, but I feel like it is necessary to show that he has a horse in this race.)--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully with the comments of Director and endorse them. I have observed the same exact thing.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua's "evidence" that there was a disagreement is so vaguely constructed that anybody could spin it. The topic of disagreement is also so minor that it would be hard to gain any sort of knowledge from it. Alexikoua had no significant stake in the article so he of course conceded. If he did have a stake (ie. if he was a significant editor with plenty of sources), he would be facing a mine of WP:Battle and would face the same annoyance most other editors are finding here. Furthermore, Alexikoua and Antidiskriminator had never (or rarely) disagreed with each other so he therefore faced no hostility.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nouniquenames

To the best of my knowledge, I've had no prior interaction with the individuals involved here. Anti could use some polishing, certainly, but (to pick a [43] complaint] above at random) unsourced information is not to stay, and without a deadline, it might stay indefinitely. I can understand the logic, at least, and it certainly wasn't common sense. I didn't see the accused battleground either. Producer seems to show that Anti disagreed about an article's assessment, which is, at best, a content dispute. It seems odd that a RM is considered disruptive, especially given the article's title at the time.

I won't take the space here to go through every point, (in part because I haven't the time,) but if those are a representative sample, I see nothing warranting the requested action, nor necessarily meeting the threshold of hounding. --No unique names 04:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DIREKTOR

I was largely on the margins of Antidiskriminator's more recent disruptive activities, however in my experience, the user displays a very obvious pattern of POV-pushing and WP:TE. As PRODUCER pointed out above, Antidiskriminator has a daily hobby of creating WP:BATTLEGROUNDS in the form of sixteen sections or so, posted one after the other, where he conducts simultaneous POV-pushing on several topic and several talkpages at once. All singularly according to the Serbian-nationalist point of view. He has WP:WIKIHOUNDED his perceived "anti-Serbian opponents" to several articles, where he continues to simply "oppose" without regard to sources and user consensus.

The user does not edit articles, but merely argues to no end. Consequently, he also never presents specific suggestions, which could allow for a more focused debate that might actually conceivably end at some point. Its just vague, pointless quibbling day after day.

He usually has no sources, or has cherry-picked sources, or his sources are obviously biased to the point of comedy, etc.. Typically, he will post one of his myriad "complaint sections" on a talkpage, demanding some undefined change or other. Even when people arrive and basically say "go ahead, lets see what you have in mind (why aren't you editing?)" - he will actually continue to "debate" even though his edits essentially aren't opposed (cf the eight sections he started just on Talk:Chetniks, particularly this thread). Having no real support in sources, the user will typically attempt to abuse WP:DR, posting a succession of RfCs and 3Os and what not - basically trying to convince others so that he might still push unsourced nonsense into the text.

Generally speaking, the user's conduct is annoying to no end. Productive users who do actual research (like Peacemaker) are forced to deal with his brand of Balkans-nationalist WP:TE and endless disruption day in day out, farcical RfC after farcical RfC - instead of contributing to the project. He never gives up, regardless of how unsupported his position is. When policy is pointed to him, he calls it a "personal attack", basically ignores it, and just continues on - e.g. his ignoring this report as well. For months now the user has been posting one section after another on Talk:Pavle Đurišić, again and again and again, "complaint" after "complaint" in endless succession, one more biased and baseless than the next. Frankly, if the user is not sanctioned now for this wide-scale disruption - I can easily see this sort of nonsense continuing on indefinitely. -- Director (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nick-D

On 19 September Antidiskriminator reposted sections of some of my comments at WP:RSN at Talk:Pavle Đurišić in such a way that they appeared to suggest that I supported their position, when in fact I did not. This was shortly before they were warned of the Eastern European editing restrictions, and when I confronted him or her about on 24 September they apologised. As far as I was concerned the matter was concluded, with no harm done other than further hardening my aversion to offering an opinion on this kind of dispute. However, I'm surprised to see that this fraudulent post attributed to me is still on the article's talk page (I actually thought it had been removed). Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fut.Perf.

From my own experience with Antidiskriminator on some Kosovo-related pages, and from observing him from a distance on a number of other "ethnic" troublespots (mostly Serbian-Albanian), I share the view that A. is a textbook case of a tendentious editor and needs to be restricted. It's maybe not so much any one particular set of offensive edits I'd point to, but just the overall picture of the "travelling circus": an endless succcession of tedious, unproductive squabbling, always related to the same predictable agenda issues. For concrete examples, I find Direktor's links to the Pavle Ðurišić talkpage instructive. Talk:Pavle Đurišić#Iron cross controversy is a particular illustrative section, showing an infuriating obtuseness in repeatedly failing to substantiate an alleged NPOV concern when asked to do so. After making an unsourced claim, Antidiskriminator spent three posts over ten days squabbling over the term "original research", until finally beginning to address the obvious issue that he hadn't provided sources to back up his claim; he never proceeded to explaining what point those (foreign-language) sources were actually making. The section a bit further down, related to the same issue (Talk:Pavle Đurišić#Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War) is equally illustrative. Can't act as an uninvolved admin on this one, but would certainly recommend sanctions of some sort. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Antidiskriminator did provide sources with quotes and their translation at the end of the iron cross thread. These remained unreplied it seems. I agree that his initial approach was unproductive. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. He did that only after seeing Fut. Perf's comment. [44] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I should have checked the chronology more carefully. There's indeed a six-week gap between Antidiskriminator's last post there (Oct 13) and Peacemaker67's last post above it (Sep 28). Tijfo098 (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tijfo098

Looking at the threads indicated by FPaS I think Peacemaker67 deserves and equal restriction. He repeatedly brushed off several RS/N discussions that brought in question (w/academic reviews) the source Peacemaker67 was relying upon (Cohen). That such a source is used in a FA only shows how pathetic Wikipedia really is. If one side can use yellow journalism in articles then so can the other. And don't say it was published by an academic publisher. It's an obscure university press publishing someone with no degree in history (and who found real success in Croatia). See the recently closed thread we had on User:JCAla, who was heavily relying on a similar book for a comparison. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be correct to say Antidiskriminator was wrong in his demands and "complaints" every single time: that would be quite an achievement. When someone posts dozens upon dozens of threads pushing in the same nationalist-POV direction, one or two are bound to have some kind of real support. I myself agreed that he might have a point several times, including the Cohen issue. But equally as such cases are drops in a sea of WP:TE are Peacemaker's possible errors of the above sort only drops in the sea of excellent, diligent, and thoroughly-researched contribution on a very difficult and obscure topic. Whereas antid is there merely to squabble and complain, continuously and without end, Peacemaker is the guy who's hard work and extensive contribs he's criticizing.

When someone harasses and hounds you all over the project, impeding your efforts with incessant, pointless, malicious bickering, it's hard to view the 27th complaint in good faith. I've often remarked on the tendency to simply "block everybody" or treat everyone as equally "guilty", but to treat these two users in such a way might be a new low in that regard. Their behavior and value to the project are not even comparable. That's my take anyway. -- Director (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem here is Wikipedia's inherently flawed system of "review". Basically Antidiskriminator was raising talk page points about perceived flaws in the article, while Peacemaker67 was complaining (sometimes using colorful phrases like "Blind Freddy" as in this thread) that Antidiskriminator is not editing the article. Outside of Wikipedia, a reviewer will not edit your paper. And in the few occasions that outside opinion was solicited (as in that thread I linked), both Antidiskriminator and Peacemaker67 were found to advance statements not supported by the sources cited (cf. WP:3O provided by User:Gigs there). Perhaps in the overall picture one is more at fault than the other, but in this article, I don't see why one should be sanctioned and the other not. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is academic. This is not outside WP, this IS WP and policies and norms of WP apply. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a less academic point. Read Talk:Ante_Pavelić#Unbeliveable_and_Laughable. There Peacemaker67 supports the inclusion of a source which says that "There was not even the slightest indication of antisemitism in the Ustaša ". I fully support a topic ban on him at this point. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of the regulars in this area: the bio that DIREKTOR + PRODUCER produced for Jozo Tomasevich was laughable, by the way. Stanford University in San Francisco, eh? [45] Nobody caught that for 6 months. Gives you pause about Wikipedia's readers. Oh, and he didn't actually teach at Stanford. But according to Peacemaker67 he called Ante Pavelic with the appellation "Dr." Hmm.... Tijfo098 (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now just wait a second. Firstly, I can't imagine what that has to do with anything. Secondly, if you're looking for random irregularities in the "Balkalns Articles" I suggest you set aside a few months for the search alone. Thirdly, I can't remember anymore but I'm reasonably certain people didn't actually make things up there: at best those are good faith errors, but also, here's a link from stanford.edu describing Tomasevich as "Stanford's professor" [46]. (If you think that the location of Stanford is general knowledge over here half-way across the world - think again :). We're more acquainted with places like the peaceful university town of Sorbonne..)

Finally, as I believe this is a free encyclopedia, I don't think anyone could possibly be topic banned for advocating the reliability of a scholarly source with some considerable peer review support, not without an action appeal anyway. I recommend Tijfo, that you view antid's behavior on the whole, rather than just this Cohen business, which seems to have struck a cord? The matter was discussed at WP:RSN, you don't propose to sanction everyone who didn't oppose Cohen's inclusion? (btw, I do agree that he probably isn't RS, now that I've had time to refresh my memory, but being wrong isn't something you sanction people for - as opposed to a pattern of nationalist POV-pushing and TE). That's it from me, I'm off to the islands and will need to declare a wikibreak :)

P.s. That Cohen quote is very much out of context. He is there referring to the early years of the Ustaše, when they were under Mussolini's wing. At that time Mussolini didn't express much anti-semitic sentiment either. And Cohen is Jewish after all, kind of hard to imagine him excusing anti-semitisim. -- Director (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect Tijfo098, can we try to keep this on topic and in context? You have so far raised out-of-context content issues on Ante Pavelic and seriously misrepresented the discussions at that. You have also seriously misrepresented and exaggerated discussions on RSN and at Pavle Djurisic about Cohen. My understanding of this place on WP is that you need to try to focus your discussion on the behaviour of Antidiskriminator that is the subject of the report, not obscure matters with off-topic discussions of my work on Ante Pavelic, where Antidiskriminator has yet to appear. If you think that my conduct on Ante Pavelic warrants a report, please go ahead, but this thread is clearly not the place. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to set the record straight the quote that Tijfo098 is mocking and even advocating topic-banning Peacemaker over is actually from Ivo Goldstein and a part of a work from the Jewish Studies at the Central European University. This is what's really "laughable" here. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admins should note the WP:BATTLE conduct of the DIREKTOR - PRODUCER - Peacemaker troika, who repeatedly bring issues unrelated to article improvement to Talk:Jozo Tomasevich. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I say you come here with unclean hands. You brought issues unrelated to this AE report to this forum, which was completely inappropriate. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Alexikoua

I really don't see anything remotely actionable according to this limited ammount of evidence provided against Antidiskriminator. In fact Antidiskriminator is one of the few editors that strictly follows the guidelines, especially about Balkan related topics. Although in the past I had some minor content disputes with him, I was surprised with the way he approaches the various issues and welcomes any third part opinion.

If one Balkan editor should receive some kind of restriction that's off course not him.Alexikoua (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example here [[47]] I was firmly against the creation of Independent Albania article by Antit., nevertheless he was kind enough to answer this [[48]]. Although I was still against the creation of this article Antint. is one of the few editors that stays calm and avoids to make things hot.Alexikoua (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning User:Antidiskriminator

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

Nmate

No action taken. Iadrian yu (talk · contribs) is warned that frivolous AE requests will result in sanctions for the filer. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Nmate

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Adrian (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: DIGWUREN, section: Principles

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

This user is an example of WP:ABF, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OR. Since this user has been warned a couple of times, blocked several times [49]; [50] - blocked for edit warring, placed under DIGWUREN notice and under the List of editors placed under editing restriction [51] his behavior is not changing, it is even worse.

He is violating at-least 4 out of 5 principles of DIGWUREN case [52].

According to his edits, his contributions are 90% related to conflicts with people who disagree with him, in most of the showing battleground mentality and bad faith with almost obligatory accusations of whoever complains against him for block shopping or harassment.

Links:

[53] Bad faith and closing discussion without the permission of other editors.
[54] Original research, and when corrected he acts in bad faith against this user: [55]
[56] Original research, and when corrected acts in bad faith against a second user : [57]
[58] Protecting original research with bad faith.
[59] Protecting original research with bad faith.
[60] bad faith.
[61] Bad faith edits.
[62] Bad faith and battleground mentality.
[63] Bad faith and civility problems (na szevasz te észlény in Hungarian = Hello you smartass(or rather doofus/dummy)).
[64] Original research on this and many other articles in spite of many warnings(there isn`t enough place here to enumerate them all).
[65] Edit warring.
[66] This behavior combined with trying to block other users.
[67] Reverting other peoples messages, even a Request for comment.
[68] Bad faith and battleground mentality.

His talk page is riddled with warnings and block logs from several different editors just in the last month:[69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74].. which he clearly ignores.

There are many more examples, but I enumerated only the latest. Note that whatever contact with this user wth persons who doesn`t agree with him is resulted in an immediate accusations of block shopping or harassment [75] and [76] while allowing him to continue with his behavior.

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

Warned on [77] by Elonka (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:Timotheus Canens - You are right, indeed I used a lot of this phrasing (just noticed myself :) ) but I don`t know with what other words to describe some of the actions I presented here. If this is not appropriate I could change it. Adrian (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise - I am surprised that you don`t see anything wrong with the diffs I provided but if you fell that I made a mistake, that`s fine too. I am aware that Arbitration process can rule against me too. I thought that this pattern in the behavior of this user is more than obvious in violating the principles of the DIGWUREN case. Adrian (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tijfo098 - In my opinion you are partially right. The main reason is his conduct while adding unsourced data. Several times just a simple contact with this user results in various accusations and personal attacks which leads to conflicts. Adrian (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused that several uninvolved users think there is nothing serious here about the conduct of this user (WP:AGF for starts), but ok. In my opinion principle courtesyDIGWUREN, section: Principles is violated by this user. I see that for an example User:Irpen is listed [[78]] as for personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith for less. Of course it is possible that I made a mistake but I have 2 questions:

1) Does this mean that this kind of behavior is allowed?
2) If I get a sanctioned for misusing this board does this means that this behavior is in some way tolerated?

I would like to know so I would not repeat the same mistake in the future. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Nmate.

I will try to respond to some of the points you made, on points I do not respond I believe the diffs I provided before provides sufficient information and no further explanations are needed. Also I am not sure that I must be implicated personally to file this report if there is evidence for claims I presented here.

2 - After somebody informs you that you are adding original research you responded with phrases: I gasped at you, also based on this you even accused this user of personal attack which is unprecedented. Phrase of which you know fucking nothing isn`t something a wikipedian should use.
6 - You considered the addition of some tags to a article created by you as an offense, not as a harmless indicator added in good faith to signal that the article needs to be improved. After that you followed with a personal attack [79].
8 - You closed an active discussion. According to Which discussions need to be closed you acted in bad faith.
9 - Your edit summary (while you reverted his warning) is a civility problem. The Hungarian phrase na szevasz te észlény(Hello you smartass(or rather doofus/dummy)) is a suggestion of incivility and personal attack. I translated it and if requested we can ask for an uninvolved Hungarian editor to provide a translation.
13 - Deleting someone's possible constructive comment on the basis of a personal suspicion(unconfirmed by admins) is a proof of bad faith.
14 - According to Banning policy: When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. - you added an unsourced and badly written data(WP:OR). Also Zboril Are Descendants Of Ilona Szilágyi is badly written and unreferenced (WP:OR).

According to the diffs I provided your behavior presents an serious problem on wikipedia, and I presented only your latest actions. You are well informed of DIGWUREN case yet your behavior is the same as when you were warned or placed under editing notice. I am not sure if I need to inform other users of this, but if requested I will.

I will avoid to answer your accusations(with which I don`t see a connection to this report) because anyone who disagrees with you meets with one or more accusations. I hope I answered your questions. Adrian (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the section specially dedicated to me

Response to the section specially dedicated to me and not to the this case. Again you accuse me of various things without any solid evidence, you even accused this user of NPA just for informing you of WP:OR! Even so, I will try to answer them to avoid the confusion you inserted. Diffs from more than a year ago I don`t want to comment, by that I could enumerate your actions from before.

Diffs from 2012:

1 - You deleted other people`s comments without the evidence of sock or anything else. A proof of bad faith. I commented there according to wiki policies.
2 - You did violated 3RR and by entering in an continuing edit war you showed battleground mentality. I also informed other users that you are familiar with DIGWUREN case yet you still show disruptive behavior.
3 - Note that on my comment where I provided diffs for my claims you answered

Note that Iadrian yu is block-shopping again based on frivilous reasons of which I will notify the Arbitration Comitee. Restoring a comment made by a site-banned user is not allowed. Second, I haven't encountered Iadrian yu on Wikipaedia for a while and still he is block shopping. It is disgusting.

and

Has this anything to do with you? Note that Iadrian yu does not interest to edit the article; his only aim is block shopping. Second, I do not have to wait until it is confirmed by checkuser if said user admitted that he is a sockpuppet: which part of it do you not understand? - where again you did`t waited for the sock to be confirmed (as you stated it yourself) and started accusing me again just because I was there. I am starting to think that there is no encounter in the last year where you did`t responded to my diffs with some sort of accusation against me just because I presented some data and not addressed the evidence I provided. Adrian (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional diffs about Nmate

I will add more diffs that demonstrates User:Nmate`s behavior problems.

[80] Adding original research while not allowing other users to edit new pages ? Followed by a problematic edit summary with accusations (Wikistalking).
[81] - Same problem on different article.
[82] - Appears in the discussion he was not involved, to participate against me.
[83] Conditional unblock for edit warring and because Nmate removed data of users that were not confirmed socks yet.
[84] - An attempt to block me at Arbitration enforcements for no reason, after lacking evidence he canceled the report [85].

If more diffs are needed I could provide them in given time. Adrian (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification [86] Adrian (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Nmate

Statement by Nmate

I do not understand what Iadrian yu wants to achieve here. 14 diffs are brought up here most of them do not concern Iadrian yu. So what does he deal with my alleged "bad faith" then? It is senseless.

1. line, it does not concern Iadrian yu. He did not even take part in this discussion. So what does he deal with my alleged "bad faith" then? There was no point in continuing the discussion there. Closing a discussion is not such a big concern, I did not edit war on closing it. Omen1229 reverted it back. Interestingly enough that no-one participated in the discussion afterwards
2. line, it does not concern Iadrian yu. He did not even take part in this discussion. So what does he deal with my alleged "bad faith" then?
3. line, First diff does not concern Iadrian yu. He did not even take part in this discussion. So what does he deal with my alleged "bad faith" then? Second diff indeed concerns Iadrian yu, I will return to the issue later.
4. line, it does not concern Iadrian yu and has nothing to do with original research. I deleted the "unreferenced" and "copy edit" tags from the lead. And I also do not understand what Iadrian yu deals with my bad faith.
5. line same as above.
6. line, it does not concern Iadrian yu. It is related to 4. and 5. lines. I had a slight disagrement with one another user whom Iadrian yu has never interacted with, but it was resolved.
7. line, the edit in question was not even mine.
8. line, it was a revert, nothing more.

And that my edit summary "referenced but irrelevant information that no need to include in the article. The historical section requies only an overview of the history. Lots of pieces of info is written in the article in bad English in addition" can be interpreted as "Bad faith and battleground mentality" surpasses the power of my imaginary.

9. line, What does Iadrian yu deal with an edit summary related to my talk page? It was not incivility. On the other hand, Iadrian does even no speak Hungarian; therefore, he is unable to translate it.
10. line, it wasn't OR.
11. line, it was a revert. Later, it evolved to a samaller edit war. It does not concern Iadrian yu. It is related to 4. 5. and 6. lines. I had a slight disagrement with one another user whom Iadrian yu has never interacted with, but it was resolved. Finally, said user told me "Again, if you ever have questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards," [87]
12.line, This behavior combined with trying to block other users Whom? If the other user is User:Samofi, he is an indef-bloked user. What is more, admin The Blade of the Northern Light told in this thread that he revoked Samofi's talk page access.
13. line, "Reverting other peoples messages, even a Request for comment." Indded, I did it. The user was a sockpuppet using proxy IP.
14. line, it is deceptive. At the article Ilona Szilágyi, I reverted a lot of edits made by 2 sockpuppets of a well known sockpuppeter [88][89] And yet at the same time, one another user who knew nothing of the situation intervened there by restoring the sockpuppet's edit. Then I indeed reverted the edit back that has nothing to do with any kind of battleground mentality. However, Iadrian yu cared to include the only one revert here when I did not revert the sockpuppetter to double-cross the administrators.

To Iadrian yu

2. line, After somebody informs you that you are adding original research you responded with phrases: I gasped at you, also based on this you even accused this user of personal attack which is unprecedented. Phrase of which you know fucking nothing isn`t something a wikipedian should use.
response: Seriously??? It was not OR. You can hardly bring this issue up at WP AE. This might belong to Wikiquette.

6. line, You considered the addition of some tags to a article created by you as an offense, not as a harmless indicator added in good faith to signal that the article needs to be improved. After that you followed with a personal attack.

response: It was not a personal attack, but a frolic. Please learn some more English. What do you deal with that? It did not concern you. To repeat myself, it was resolved: said user told me "Again, if you ever have questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards," [90] Withal, I think that a user may not request for remedy for any personal attacks that do not concern him except for extraordinary reasons such as blackmailing, death threat, or when the attacked user is inactive. However, Iadrian yu showed up at WP AE making demands for admin action against me for purporated personal attacks aimed at active users he has never ever encountered on Wikipedia while he "forgot" to notify the attacked users in question.
8. line, You closed an active discussion.
response: That discussion wasn't so active. Please check how many people wanted to participate in it afterwards. Btw you can hardly bring this issue up at WP AE. This might belong to Wikiquette.

9. line, Your edit summary (while you reverted his warning) is a civility problem. The Hungarian phrase na szevasz te észlény(Hello you smartass(or rather doofus/dummy)) is a suggestion of incivility and personal attack. I translated it and if requested we can ask for an uninvolved Hungarian editor to provide a translation
response: I do not think that any administrator gives a hoot about that. Withal, I think that a user may not request for remedy for any personal attacks that do not concern him except for extraordinary reasons such as blackmailing, death threat, or when the attacked user is inactive. However, Iadrian yu showed up at WP AE making demands for admin action against me for purporated personal attacks aimed at active users he has never ever encountered on Wikipedia while he "forgot" to notify the attacked users in question.
13. line - Deleting someone's possible constructive comment on the basis of a personal suspicion(unconfirmed by admins) is a proof of bad faith.
response: Only that it was confirmed.

14. line: According to Banning policy: When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. - you added an unsourced and badly written data(WP:OR). Also Zboril Are Descendants Of Ilona Szilágyi is badly written and unreferenced (WP:OR).
response: First Iadrian yu accused me of "Bad faith and battleground mentality" and when he saw that it did not fit to common sense, he begans referring to banning policy and verifiability

More on Iadrian yu

Iadrian yu pretends that there was some serious offense. It’s obvious he stores some kind of file on me, watches all my edits, even ones which don’t concern him in the least bit, looking for some “dirt”. This is explicit evidence of ‘’’long term, sustained, stalking’’’. Additonally, he accuses me of battleground mentality, and bad faith acting towards 3 users: User:IRWolfie-, User:Lone boatman ,and User:Cindamuse without his making any attempt to notify either of them about the fact that he lodged a request for arbitration for me in which they are involved. So why? It is because of the fact that he has never interacted with these users, and I also just coincidentally encountered them in Wikipedia. Therefore, it is unlikely that they would like to participate in his block shopping campaign here.

previous attempts at block shopping:

09:04, 13 March 2011. There is not enough to warrant a block at this time: 18:48, 15 March 2011
13:34 11 July, 2011 frivilous SPI case, I see no evidence that would warrant an investigation of the other mentioned users: 17:41, 11 July, 2011
13:30 4 October, 2011 Calling my "involvement" - eager to block you is just ridiculous ..... in my opinion you should take a wiki-break.

On 20 April, 2012, I began reverting edits made to Wikipedia by a self-admitted sockpuppet, and Iadrian yu appeared at the "edit warring board" - which is a place to get blocks - in order to agitate for one another block for me:

11:57, 20 April 2012("Again a new problem with this user")
12:01, 20 April 2012 ("in this examples it is clear that Nmate violated the 3RR several times and of course the battleground mentality of edit warring")
12:04, 20 April 2012
12:33, 20 April 2012 ("Ah, another sign of a constructive, friendly editing I guess ... after several arbitration enforcements on your account")

I think that Iadrian yu has been on a permanent campaign to eliminate an editor who he disagrees with. At this point, this should be disruptive enough to require some block.

Response to Iadrian yu regarding: response to the section specially dedicated to me

Interesting enough that it is Iadrian yu who has reported me at WP AE, and yet he dares to tell that I accuse him of various things without any solid evidence.

You deleted other people`s comments without the evidence of sock or anything else. A proof of bad faith. I commented there according to wiki policies.

My reply is: it was a block-shopping on you part, everyone can see it with a half brain. Then the sockpuppet was blocked[91], no adim action was taken against me.

You did violated 3RR and by entering in an continuing edit war you showed battleground mentality. I also informed other users that you are familiar with DIGWUREN case yet you still show disruptive behavior.

My reply is: Had I violated the 3RR rule , I would have blocked for it. No-one, but User:Bzg1920 was blocked there. Normally, the edit warring board has nothing to do with DIGWUREN. However, you began retairating DIGWURREN there in the hope of that it may result in me being blocked even more seriously than as usuall happens in the edit warring board. I resent "the disruptive behavior". You are the one being disruptive.

There is nothing to further comment on this line.--Nmate (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Nmate

I don't know who's pushing the most POV here, but "Lots of pieces of info is written in the article in bad English in addition" was funny. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise - I am also surprised that you don`t see anything wrong with the diffs. In my opinion Future Perfect at Sunrise is not neutral admin. He acts in favour of Nmate. He used "boomerang" phrase in my case, in case of user Samofi and again in case of Adrian. On the other hand he always acted quickly in Nmate benefit or in favour of other editors from his POV/country. For example this case: At 22 November 2011 he promised he will look on my "oponnents": [92] But nothing happened. On the other hand after canvass of Nmate he had time to block Samofi [93] . This was reason for him for topic ban: [94] and this for a block: [95] But for example this statement (The modern Slovakia is a neo-fascist state where the hungarian minority is just a thing what they have to assimilate into the slovak society. [96] ) was unnoticed. It looks like a admin abuse. In my opinion user Nmate wants to block all users with different opinions.--Omen1229 (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making an attack on one of the admins will only reinforce a boomerang and will quickly lose you anything sympathy. Please don't do that. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice I was mentioned by name, but not informed of this. I suggest the admins look at User_talk:IRWolfie-#Your message on my talk page, to get an idea of the failure to AGF. The comments on my page arose from [97] IRWolfie- (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the actual concern here is that Nmate has been adding unsourced material. It looks like this has been mostly translated from the Hungarian Wikipedia. At the same time he was deleting large amounts of sourced material, but which was based on rather obscure (Slovakian?) sources. In the latter case there was zero discussion on the talk page Talk:Reca; there was some on a user talk page. The unsourced material he added was challenged on the assumption that it was "OR", which is not a productive line of discussion; again this was (unhelpfully) discussed on user talk pages, such as IRWolfie-'s. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no major mistakes or signs of outrageous behavior in the provided diffs. I do not see the point of this request. Content disputes, such as what is OR and which information are relevant to particular articles, should be discussed on the appropriate Talk Pages. All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nmate

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

For clarity's sake, I've disabled Samofi's talkpage access as it was becoming incredibly obvious nothing good would come from him having it. Nmate posted a message on my talkpage asking me to, and I honestly don't read anything into it; no matter how slanted any request to block a user and/or disable talkpage access, admins are supposed to independently review the situation. Same thing goes for the requests above. That said, there may have been other issues that I didn't see, so I'll look over everything again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that I have never seen an AE request that features so many instances of the phrase "bad faith". T. Canens (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see nothing actionable in the diffs against Nmate, but would support boomerang measures against Iadrian yu for misusing this board. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The comment above by Tjfo098 offers the first evidence I've seen that there is any issue at all with Nmate's recent edits. Those particular examples are hard to get excited about. Checking Nmate's last 500 edits (back to late August) doesn't show me anything alarming. This AE by Iadrian yu is certainly close to being a misuse of the board. Per Future Perfect's suggestion for a boomerang, I would support a warning to User:Iadrian yu for wasting our time. EdJohnston (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mooretwin

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user: Mooretwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Mooretwin (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Indefinite topic ban on articles, discussions, and other content related to The Troubles, the Ulster banner and British baronets, imposed at [[98]]. The decision allowed for an appeal after six months. The decision was imposed on 10 February 2012, therefore six months passed on 10 August 2012.

Administrator imposing the sanction: T. Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Mooretwin

I have abided by the topic ban for nearly eight months, and I would like it to be lifted. I have demonstrated restraint in this period and I have learned my lesson about making frivolous and retaliatory complaints against other editors. I acted in the "heat of the moment" and shall not do so again. Prior to the incident in question, I had successfully managed to avoid confrontation, edit wars, etc., for a period of two years.

I've largely restricted myself to updating sports articles, as a scan through "My Contributions" will testify. Not much collaboration, I'm afraid, although I did instigate a discussion that led to a consensus for merging an article: 1. I'll notify T. Canens. Mooretwin (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unreasonable, surely, if the ban were not lifted because of the single inocuous (and constructive) edit idenfitied by T. Canens. And why was I even banned from "British baronetcies" anyway? Bizarre. On the wider point, how is it possible to demonstrate collaborative editing if I am banned from all the topics about which I have sufficient knowledge to contribute? Mooretwin (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by T. Canens

As I was acting on a consensus of uninvolved admins in enacting the topic ban, I don't think it's appropriate for me to unilaterally lift it.

After a very quick look, I have a question for Mooretwin: Do you think this edit violate your topic ban from "... British baronets"? T. Canens (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Mooretwin

I am not involved in this but if this user has changed as he proved he is I am always for giving a second chance. Also he waited for 8 months while he could ask for this 2 months earlier. Adrian (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the baronets block, this was initially added to the standard troubles wording due to edit warring in that area by users like Vintagekits. It has long ceased to be an area of contention and an appeal two months ago by another user resulted in that part of the wording being struck from the remedy. While existing sanctions do still include the Baronets portion, it would seem harsh in this case to sanction an editor for a minor edit to a topic which they had never edited in a disruptive way in the past. Valenciano (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Mooretwin

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

Mooretwin, can you please link to examples of you working well on Wikipedia in the last six months, especially in highly collaborative ways? Furthermore, please notify T. Canens of this discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I'm opposed to lifting indef sanctions on the basis of their being waited out. If we were putting somebody out of an area for a specific length of time we'd issue a ban of definite duration. HJ Mitchell is making a similar point (in an unrelated thread) below. Indef bans are issued to adjust behaviour until such time that it is fixed. Thus the only reason we have to lift such bans is demonstrable changes in the behaviour that led to the ban.
In this case the diff Tim Canens lists above shows MooreTwin has in fact infringed the ban within the last week. For my money, even if we mark this down as a mistake MooreTwin's activities involved little collaboration with others. As harmonious collaborative editing is at the heart of the issue that led to MooreTwin's ban I'd be open to reviewing this again after MooreTwin shows more collaboration on site--Cailil ^talk 21:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the decision explicitly allows an appeal after 6 months time (which it did), I don't think it's reasonable to keep the sanction standing just on principle. However, maybe it is better to use a gradual approach. We can narrow the topic ban now, to give the user the chance to contribute positively in areas he is competent in, and consider the remaining ban later. Concretely, I suggest to limit the topic ban to The Troubles (which is a hotspot of trouble anyways) now, and to allow an appeal for the rest of the ban to be lifted in 3 to 6 months. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection to dropping the clause about British baronetcies from this ban, but in my opinion the indef ban from WP:TROUBLES should stay in place. Mooretwin has an impressive block log and has been here at AE a lot. Unless he wants to present real data to show how collaborative he has been in the past six months I don't see any motive for lifting the ban. The mere passage of time is not enough. EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am broadly in agreement with Stephen Shultz, but also sympathetic to Cailil's viewpoint. I think we should open up an area that is close to (within broadly construed) the problem area and see how Mooretwin is able to edit in that area. This will allow us to actually see if Mooretwin's behavior has changed, or not.--Tznkai (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the broad thrust above - I see no problem with lifting the Baronets ban - this was removed recently by the Arbcom from the Troubles ruling so I see no reason to leave it in place. However as above I agree with Ed - passage of time has nothing to do with Indefinite sanctions. The 6 month appeal process is there to give the person time to adjust and to show change.
In short agree with Steven's suggestion reduce ban to cover troubles only, but leave in place indefinitely until MooreTwin shows more positive collaboration on site in other topic areas--Cailil ^talk 13:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Hearfourmewesique

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user: Hearfourmewesique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from the subject of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive104#Hearfourmewesique

Administrator imposing the sanction: NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: [99]

Statement by Hearfourmewesique

It has been almost 10 months since the topic ban, and it was not violated once. I have also embraced a much more cool headed approach to this topic as a whole. Please give me a chance to prove that I can be a valuable editor.

Note to Tijfo098: it really has nothing to do with ARBPIA, which I have been fully respecting ever since the topic ban. Aside from the fact that I've been politely pointing out ad hominem attacks and expressing support for the existence of an article about persecution by Muslims in a civil manner, is there anything you perceive as "behavior issues"? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tznkai - :I will look for it a little later, have to go soon. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remark: I've been having a hard time with my internet connection lately, hopefully will have access in two days (it's never steady since I'm a frequent traveler) so I can look into my history. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To Tijfo098: Volunteer Marek was consistent in making sure to smear almost each and every "keep" vote, using borderline personal attacks at times, in repeated – and unmasked – attempts to discredit each voter (to quote WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."), as well as reasserting the closing admins with notes restating the obvious, in a manner that can be perceived only as excessively persuasive. Examples: [100] [101] While the expression "in a manner worthy of the finest of spammers" is quite tongue-in-cheek, it's still far from violating WP:CIVIL. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NuclearWarfare

I'm fine with whatever other admins want to decide, though I personally would recommend against it. NW (Talk) 18:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Hearfourmewesique

Was he topic banned? I never noticed [102] [103] [104]. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is has to do with WP:ARBPIA area?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@H: "in a manner worthy of finest of spammers" is not a polite expression. And in the same conversation you complain about "the obvious and borderline ad hominem remarks" presumably said by someone else. WP:KETTLE. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Hearfourmewesique

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

Hearfourmewesique, can you please link to examples of you working well on Wikipedia in the last six months, especially in highly collaborative ways?--Tznkai (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two thoughts occur (my remarks on the AE report that led to this ban are worth reading for context). One is that an indefinite topic ban, though not infinite, is at the more severe end of the spectrum of sanctions we impose at AE (and, having just re-read the original AE report) I'm as convinced now as I was then that the ban is just), so I'm inclined against lifting it before a year has elapsed. The second is that I'd like to know how Hearfourmewesique thinks their presence in the topic area could be of benefit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting on examples, but I see no purpose to a minimum sentencing attitude if there is any good reason to lift a restriction. We're not serving justice or anything like that.--Tznkai (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factocop

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

Request concerning Factocop

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION

This all relates to WP:TROUBLES, specifically the discretionary sanctions under which user:Factocop was topic banned for 3 months on 25 September [105].

Also, ARBCOM attached 2 conditions to his unblocking on 6 September notification at user talk:Factocop (I haven't found on-wiki discussion leading to the unblock but will provide a link if I subsequently do).

"That Factocop is restricted to editing only from one account, and always when logged in."
"That Factocop does not use the revert tool (or any variation of it) at all - not even once, and not even to revert clear vandalism..."

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

It is alleged that 46.7.113.111 (talk) is Factocop (talk · contribs). If this is correct then

All that ip's contributions in October 2012 are in violation of unblock condition 1
All that ip's contributions to the main, talk and Wikipedia talk namespaces violate the topic ban
[106], [107], [108] and [109] are violations of unblock condition 2.

For background and the raising of allegations, reading the discussions at Talk:Derry#Requested move:Derry to Londonderry. Talk:Derry#Requested move permalink is probably the easiest. The requested moves and this user's comments on them are tendentious and time-wasting.

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

My understanding is that prior warnings are not required for the unblock conditions.
I am unable to find a specific notification of the standard discretionary sanctions, but as Factocop has been sanctioned under them as recently as last month he cannot fail to be aware of them.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This all hinges on whether 46.7.113.111 (talk) is or is not Factocop (talk · contribs). At the help desk it was suggested I make a report here in the first instance rather than requesting a separate SPI.[110]. Factocop has been proven as a sockpuppeteer in the past, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Factocop/Archive. The allegations are based on behavioural evidence (partly enunciated at Talk:Derry#Requested move e.g. [111] (before discussion was moved). CodSaveTheQueen (talk · contribs), a proven sockpuppet of Factocop, was disruptive on a previous proposal to rename the Derry article to Londonderry, see the collapsed section at Talk:Derry#Possible moratorium.

I will place a link to this request at Talk:Derry to alert editors there. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Factocop: [112]
46.7.113.111: [113]

Discussion concerning Factocop

Statement by Factocop

Comments by others about the request concerning Factocop

Just to say I am not Factocop, and this seems to be an attempt to derail a discussion. I have checked and Factocop is listed as RETIRED. I also checked an archived report [114]. Suggestions are that this user operates from London. I think the WHOIS function will perhaps show that I am not from London. I doubt Factocop would of moved to my location to avoid a wikipedia blocking but fair play to the lad if he has.46.7.113.111 (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom members don't often comment at ARBE. To get a CU, I would suggest someone files at SPI. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional behavioural evidence can be seen here with his socks and here as Factocop, notice the use of the underscore in editors names something which this IP did also with this edit Mo ainm~Talk 17:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but without the odd underscore, a user name just looks like a spelling mistake. Soz. Wont use an underscore again mo, ainm high, I will.46.7.113.111 (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the IPs geolocating to the UK, it should be borne in mind that 109.154.199.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was from Northern Ireland. Travel between the two parts of the island is easier than between the two parts of the UK. Other than the novelty of the UPC address being in a different jurisdiction, the topic area, style, diction and interaction with others shouts duck. RashersTierney (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it's easier for him to move about Northern Ireland and the Republic but he'd much rather take expensive flights to Great Britain in order to edit Wikipedia? I'm not buying that explaination as why would any person after being blocked from a certain IP range, shell out money on flights in order to move to another part of the country to continue disruption which they'd probably know would be reverted anyway? So I don't think that the ip is Factocop. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think moving between the island of Great Britain and Ireland just to get a different IP range is rather significantly unlikely. However, travel between the two for the purposes of work, family, recreation, etc. is very common. All of the relevant contributions from this IP have been in October this year and none show any of the hallmarks of a new user. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact this IP just happened to appear in topics that Factocop was active in before he got blocked gives a strong hint that circumstantially at least this IP is him and he should have further sanctions placed upon him for breeching those he was already on. Also we must not forget that broadband IP locations do not always match where the user actually is and depends on the service providers exchange in use. I'm using my computer in Northern Ireland but my IP will trace many times to England. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is also possible to mask your IP as something different by using an appropriately located proxy server - say in this case one based in the Republic of Ireland. We also do have older most likely IP socks of Factocop from this old discussion to compare with - 81.187.71.75 and 84.93.157.59 both of which geolocate to England. Also add in this IP 87.113.26.186. All share common articles and discussions of interest i.e. - Eglinton, Giant's Causeway, things to do with Londonderry etc. etc. Yet those 3 IPs locate to different parts of England. We could always add {{IPsock|Factocop|blocked=yes}} to this IP's user page? Mabuska ^(talk) 17:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The anonymous editor in question is not using an anonymising proxy. He or she is in the Republic of Ireland. The question is whether the behavioural evidence is compelling enough for us to conclude that Factocop has travelled or moved to this new location. I humbly submit that it will take rather a lot more than "the IP edits the same topic" to determine there is a connection. You need to make a more detailed submission of appropriate evidence, which ought to answer questions like: Did Factocop behave as this IP does? Do they push a similar edit or agenda? Is their writing style the same? And so on. The AE administrators may want to refer this matter to WP:SPI for investigation by a more experienced hand; socking is not really AE's area of skill (nor, apparently, that of the other commentators here). HTH, AGK [•] 17:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Factocop

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

The IP in question geolocates to Dublin, Ireland; someone who knows where Factocop has operated out of could answer whether or not a connection is plausible/likely. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The IPs in the SPI archive all came from the UK. T. Canens (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser comment: It is technically Possible that the IP discussed in this complaint is operated by Factocop, but I could not make a more firm assertion of socking at this point. The IP should probably be blocked as an obvious sock of somebody (though not provably of Factocop), but I do not think checkuser data supports action against Factocop unless there is additional, behavioural evidence that proves a connection. I leave the question of whether this IP unarguably behaves like Factocop to the enforcement administrators. AGK [•] 11:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks a lot like griefing by one of the longer term sockmasters. The arguments are similar to Factocop's (but aso many others'); for me its the response here to Mo Anim that raises an eyebrow. I'm wondering if this might be the sockmaster who was egging Factocop on (and hounding Mo Anim), rather than Factocop himself: see User:Carnival Fred and User:Borundi 499--Cailil ^talk 11:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Africangenesis

Africangenesis is indefinitely banned from the topic of Climate Change. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Africangenesis

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: IRWolfie- (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBCC#Discretionary_sanctions_motion_.282011.29

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

A number of editors have been actively disruptive in the area related to climate change. A worrying large number of personal attacks, insinuations and incivility have been directed against WMC. All this has resulted from an AfD which I opened on a non-notable climate scientist. There was a very large amount of canvassing: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ShowTimeAgain/Archive and several new editors started editing as a result of the canvassing, or became others became active after a large period of inactivity. Africangenesis turned up at the AfD and is a problematic editor:

Amongst other things, he has been edit warring to insert Leroux into List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global_warming:

The editor only stopped to avoid WP:3RR technicality (he actually made 4 reverts), clearly gaming the system, mentioning in the last revert that "You hit 3RR before I do." The response to a warning makes for interesting reading: [120] also.

Assorted diffs:

[121][122][123][124][125][126][127]

There is a lot of evidence but I am aware that ARE admins like succinct filings so I have mostly limited myself to the most recent major incident. If interested for more, read the associated ANI comments, WilyD page comments etc by following the diffs

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

Warned on 9 October 2012 by dave souza (talk · contribs) and confirmed by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs)
warned on 21 October 2010 by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[128] Response to notification: [129]

Discussion concerning Africangenesis

Statement by Africangenesis

Turkey trots to water What was User:Dominus Vobisdu doing instantly reverting an edit on a page, he had never edited before, and had never participated before on that talk page, or on the discussion or vote for the deletion of the Marcel Leroux page, or on any of the discussions still ongoing on other pages regarding the deletion. Repeat: What was User:Dominus Vobisdu doing instantly reverting an edit on a page, he had never edited before, and had never participated before on that talk page, or on the discussion or vote for the deletion of the Marcel Leroux page, or on any of the discussions still ongoing on other pages regarding the deletion. The world wonders.

When I saw his quick revert, and he didn't post to the talk page, my investigations showed he was a totally uninvolved flyby, and I saw his snarky, self-righteous edit summary "Sneaky. Tsk, tsk.", I knew he was a bad faith editor ready for an edit war. I could have adhered to my voluntary 1RR commitment which before, since and still I have taken very seriously, but if I did, that would have been that. Now, thankfully with IRWolfie's help, the world does wonder.

I also still strongly feel after years of editing and thinking about wikipedia culture, that the creation of new text should not count as one of the reverts. It is not too much of a burden on the community to have the deletionist have to have the support of one other community member to "win" rather than dialogue in good faith.

I understand that this user may have a sterling record, which of course, makes me wonder even more. I will put a link to this on Vovisdu's page, since he has been mentioned, in passing.

--Africangenesis (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add, I think the wikipedia should wonder more about what goes on on these climate related pages.--Africangenesis (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the first two edits are different, I was learning to wikilink across to the fr.wikipedia. If my lawyer was here, he would tell you that either the second edit was a significantly new text in the context of the importance of wikilinks on this page (someone is not "notable" unless he has a wikipedia page, but then he can't have a wikipedia page unless he is first notable without one). Or he would tell you that the second edit was such a small change that it was essentially a minor typo fix to the first, such that if the intervening revert hadn't screwed things up, the first two edits would have been considered just one edit.--Africangenesis (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unclean hands defense vis'a'vis IRWolfie-

IRWolfie has pursued the deletion of professor Marcel Leroux despite the fact that he was obviously notable by WP:Academic criterion #5 due to being the head of the climate laboratory by criterion 1 due to his large number of citations. Since then his number of citations has been shown to be in the top 1% of his related fields. I wasn't involved from the beginning of the article and history isn't available, but he had been knighted by France for his service, meeting criterion 2, if that was known at the time of the deletion request that would be another sign of bad faith. Additionally there was the question of impact outside his profession because of his academic work, criterion 7. His skeptical writings on global warming were cited by the skeptical communities within France and around the world, but his articles in credible sources like newspapers were by him and not about him. Since then I have found several French newspaper articles which discuss his opinions in way which may meet criterion 7. <new paragraph>

Despite the original notability criteria, and the documentation since, IRWolfie- has been pursuing deletion and WP:BATTLE warring on the sandbox version of the Marcel Leroux article and on the supporting File pages, even though, the page is still in deletion review. Conclusion: unclean hands --Africangenesis (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The shear notability of Marcel Leroux is evidence of IRWolfie-'s unclean hands. Here is how notable Leroux is:

From WP:Academic these criteria are to be applied:

Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the General Notes section, which follows.

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

Discussion) From google scholar, Leroux has 67 pubs, and 617 citations. His H-index is 9 and his I10-index is 8. Marcel Leroux is far above average, likely in the top 1% of his field. Climate Science wasn't specifically listed, it is a multi-disciplinary field, but for the two closest fields from this reference, the citation threshold for being in the top 1% of scientists is 337 in environment and ecology. In Geosciences it is 538. [130]. It isn't just the number of articles and citations. I think a fair conclusion would be that he was accepted authoritatively as the world's leading expert on the climate of Northern Africa, France and the Iberian peninsula. His "The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes" appears to be an enduring contribution.

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

Discussion) The fact that he was the director or head of a laboratory can be argued to meet both or either criteria 5 and 6. As was mentioned above, the language barrier makes this difficult for the english wikipedia, it is difficult to even get the name right. In english it would be "Laboratory of Climatology, Risk, and Environment." But in the French "du Laboratoire de Climatologie, Risques, Environnement" or "du Laboratoire de Climatologie, Risques et Environnement" and even some alternate wordings all get hits corresponding to Leroux. Jacques Comby appears to be the current head of the laboratory, or one of its professors.

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

Discussion) Once again the language barrier comes into play. While he has thousands of hits of blog level criteria, most of his articles in english appear to be invited commentary by him. An argument can be made that the newspaper articles that he is the author of, are notable, because they are not just letters to the editor, but invited commentary, not extended to just anyone. So once again language and cultural differences are a barrier. The French newspapers of the stature of a NY Times or Washington Post or WSJ are not as open, they are paywalled, but I have found several hits which appear to be articles about Leroux or quoting him.

Leroux may well be notable by the general criteria, not just the WP:Academic criteria

An objective review of the history around the AfD, and subsequent attacks on the sandbox, and referenced files, and the failure to reverse despite previous discussion of all this material, leads to the conclusion that the AfD itself was WP:BATTLE.--Africangenesis (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deceptive presentation of the evidence above as further evidence of unclean hands Just prior to the 3RR violation discussion IRWolfie- posted FIVE links of "evidence". Which makes it appear as if the 3RR violation is open and shut. The first link is most egregious because it is more that TWO DAYS EARLIER I discuss the alleged 3RR violation next.--Africangenesis (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did NOT violate 3RR

Note, the first of the 5 links presented by IRWolfie- Was TWO FULL DAYS prior to the other four links, presenting 5 links prior to the 3RR discussion makes it too easy for a bad faith voter to just assume there was an egregious violation.

Note, also that link number 3 can be argued to be SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT from the link number 2 which is the first of the quick sequence to be considered in a 3RR analysis.

The wikilink in number two is:

[http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Leroux Marcel Leroux]

while in number three it is:

[[:fr:Marcel Leroux | Marcel Leroux]]

In the context of this article, where great significance is placed upon the link as showing notability, one that appears as hypertext to a flyby editor, and one that appears as a normal wikilink to another article is a substantial difference. It is clear that I am presenting a normal article in a normal manner.

Dominus Vobisdu reverted each edit with these corresponding edit summaries:

Sneaky. Tsk, tsk.

Still sneaky, oui, oui!

On my second revert, I admonish him against bad faith editing:

Sorry, that is not a valid reason for reverting, you are not editing in good faith

It is only on his third revert where he raises an informative issue in the edit summary, never on the talk page:

French WP has different criteria for notability than English WP. The article failed AfD on English WP. Don't add again.

After that is when I revert for the third time, and stop, and do not revert WMC's, revert. --Africangenesis (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Dominus Vobisdu

Dominus explains his sudden appearance at the article:

"I've been lurking on the page in question, as I generally edit in peudoscience related areas, but rarely edit or participate in discussions because of the shockingly hostile atmosphere there."

If he was as familiar with the goings on at the page and the hostile atmosphere as he claims, then he should also have known that I was a 1RR editor, and that there has never been a shortage of users willing to revert. He calls my edit summary deceptive while admitting that it was also true. Why did he feel compelled to revert and then to edit war after that?

If he was as familiar with the deletion and deletion review as he claims then why did he delete a technically complying blue link, for a professor / scientist that is clearly notable by 4 criteria when only one is required. Was he being a wikilawyer, instead of representing the true intent of wikipedia? Did he agree that Marcel Leroux was notable and as an informed person going to vote to restore the article, so he just wanted the restored entry in the page to await what he considers a "real" blue link? That is a technicality. My edits were in the spirit of wikipedia. He should have known that his reverts were totally unnecessary, and that local community is perfectly willing to revert notable scientists, in a timely matter that that their reverts had been "respected" by 1RR behavior. --Africangenesis (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Dominus comment is totally unfair:

"As far as I was concerned, that was the end to the matter."

because as far as I was concerned, it was the end of the matter too. You failed to note that it was not the end of the matter for others, who seized upon it as an opportunity. My descriptions of your behavior have been confirmed by your own admissions and by my independent research. They were not a personal attack on you, and as you noted, they were not directed at you. Frankly, you defense of your behavior doesn't hold water. --Africangenesis (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to WilyD

I had completely forgotten the previous arbcom warning. Although I wonder that I didn't use the "unclean hands" defense at that one, since Tony Sidaway had brought it. He claimed he had stepped back for a bit. But his bias remains clear since his is operating the climate change news feed at google+ Where is Tony Sidaway, BTW, has he been banned or something?

WilyD, you haven't been exactly neutral on this. You judgement at closure has been called into question. The Knighthood and the lab head position were not in question. Since then your comment about how scientists might have been slow to come around, shows your bias. You comment arguing against my demonstration that Marcel Leroux's citations put him in the top 1% of his relate fields, by noting that it isn't just professors that are in the field, shows that you are trying parse all the evidence in the most negative way possible. None of this would be happening if you had simply corrected your earlier closing decision.--Africangenesis (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: WilyD you are mistaken, the warning was two years ago.--Africangenesis (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to my Correction, it appears to have been Dominus who was mistaken about the date, unless a WileyD comment was edited underneath me.--Africangenesis (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification I see that Tony Sidaway is still an editor in good standing.--Africangenesis (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to D'sousa

Note that the reference to crew was not to current editors, but to the past, I'm entitled to my recollection. Having been a witness to collaboration on the back channel chat forum. However, I did apologize to WMC for suggesting that he had been involved in calling scientists deniers. Since then I recall something going on with regard to the Category hierarchy. Climate skepticism was being put under Category:Denialism. Shortly after that Jimmy Wales had to get involved in cleaning up some biographies. I should note that WMC was engaging in WP:BATTLE behavior as well, with his participation in the unjustified Marcel Leroux deletion, and going even further to suggest to WilyD that "salting" of the ongoing efforts on it should be considered. I don't know what "salting" is but it sounds bad. It seems that if multple people who are not a crew engage in WP:BATTLE behavior with one editor, it is that editor that is at risk.--Africangenesis (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:EdJohnston

Many editors disaffected by the culture still contribute, while you may consider me a climate change warrier, that is a biased view imposed by the requirement to be logged in to edit those semi-protected articles. Here is a partial record of other anonymous contributions. My broadband provider changes the IP address occasionally, here are some anonymous contributions. [131][132]. These contributions and others from past IPs and by other disaffected editors are despite the cognitive disssonance imposed by contributing to the credibility of an organization which tolerates the WP:OWN collective behavior on the climate articles.

You mention battleground behavior, but can you honestly say that a relentless attempt to delete a notable scientist, the sandbox of his article, the file documenting his award, etc. and attack all attempts to defend him while refusing to concede any of the points established by better than usual evidence, while technically avoiding "violations" is editing in good faith and not battleground behavior? Look a little deeper please.

regards, --Africangenesis (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the anonymous edit contributions I claim above, my use of my login has not been strictly climate related, those edits dominate because you have to war to get changes in those articles, even as the community eventually agrees it is often only grudging. Many of my climate contributions still exist on those pages, hard won agreement, but wikipedia is better for it. Here is a list of my other article editing that I bothered to login for:

   Chaos theory
   Che Guevara
   Conscription in Germany
   Counterpoint
   Denialism
   Enumerative induction
   Ericsson cycle
   Evolution
   Fallacy
   False dilemma
   File talk:John Quiggin enumerative induction.png
   Fluid ounce
   Health effects of tea
   Intelligent design
   Kaempferol
   Low-energy vehicle
   MDMA
   Melatonin
   Near-Earth object
   New Zealand
   Novel
   Ozone depletion
   Plug-in hybrid
   Postmodernity
   Russell Humphreys
   Sodium benzoate
   Solar variation
   Specified complexity
   Tea --Africangenesis (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights

"any reason"? Would you care to defend that hyperbolic battleground language? Are you one of those who can read all the discussion of Marcel Leroux and still say with a straight face that you don't see "any reason" he is notable? If so you are aspiring to IRWolfie's heights of intellectual honesty.

Do you really think the admin culture at wikipedia will be impressed with your rhetoric. Are you capable of giving a fair hearing? If you really can't think of a reason, you shouldn't be trusted with admin privileges should you?--Africangenesis (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are a nice guy.--Africangenesis (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Stephan_Schulz

A snarky mention of WP:TRUTH? No encyclopedia should aspire to be post-modern. --Africangenesis (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Dominus Vobisdu

There are two problems here to be addressed: making a deceptive edit summaries, and a long, long history of gross incivility that resulted in an ArbCom warning ~~one year~~ two years ago, and has continued to this day, despite mulitiple warnings.

I've been lurking on the page in question, as I generally edit in peudoscience related areas, but rarely edit or participate in discussions because of the shockingly hostile atmosphere there.

However, there is a certain consensus among the various parties there that any scientists added to the list have their own WP articles (no red links).

I noticed that Africangenesis had readded a section on a scientist, Marcel Leroux, whose article had recently failed AfD, and was going through DRV.

In his edit summary, he said that he was readding the material on this scientist as a "blue link", which I found odd. When I checked his addition, I was surprised to see that the link in question was indeed blue, as he said. Clicking on it, though, I discovered that he had linked not to the (deleted) article on English WP, but to the article on French wikipedia.

I reverted, of course, and he reverted back. This went on until I hit 3r, at which point he accused me of "not editing in good faith" and taunted "You hit 3RR before I do". His fourth revert was quickly overturned by another editor.

As far as I was concerned, that was the end to the matter. But not for Africangenesis. He proceded to make accusations of vandalism and bad faith against me, not directly to me, but to several other editors and administrators. I was called a "flyby" [[133]], a "a vandal or someone recruited from a chat room comes in who isn't acting in good faith " that "shouldn't be allowed to get away with playing games" [[134]], a "vandal" who "should have to explain what he was doing there, did he hear about it on the chat room or what" [[135]], a "deletionist" [[136]], and an "interloper" who "loves to delete" [[137]], who he wonders has been a net contributer to wikipedia [[138]]. This continues with his statement in this case above, where he questions my right to edit the page at all.

This not the the first time Africangenesis has violated WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY. He has been warned abundantly, even by arbcom itself [[139]]. In fact, one of the threads on which he bad-mouthed me was a thread started to warn him about multiple civility violations [[140]].

Since being warned a year ago by Arbcom, Africangenesis has persited in uncivil and battleground behavior, and shows no willingness or ability to change. I recommend a (long-overdue) indefinite block. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:dave souza

Having previously edited the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, I noticed Africangenesis referring on the article's talk page to his "memory of an earlier time, when WMC and crew were fighting to put scientists on a list like this",[141] so I joined the thread to remind Africangenesis that WP:NPA "means you shouldn't be dismissing other editors as "crew". Please cease and desist."[142] Far from desisting, Africangenesis escalated attacks,[143] [144] so I advised Africangenesis on their talk page that this was clear contravention of WP:NPA and displayed WP:BATTLEFIELD behaviour, particularly unacceptable on a climate change topic after having already been notified of WP:ARBCC sanctions. When Africangenesis responded aggressively, I advised NuclearWarfare,[145] who then warned Africangenesis about attacking other editors in this manner.[146] That was on 9 October 2012, but Africangenesis did not improve behaviour. A similar pattern showed in the Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement discussion[147] which led to Africangenesis being formally notified of ARBCC sanctions on 21 October 2010, with a warning that ongoing disruptive editing may result in blocks, topic bans, or other editing restrictions.[148]. . . dave souza, talk 11:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by mostly uninvolved User:Gigs

While I agree that Africangenesis' actions have been disruptive, his point about Marcel Leroux being improperly deleted is valid. I disagree with the academic notability standards, but Leroux clearly passes them in several ways. Africangenesis' response to the deletion has been extreme, but I can understand his frustration when faced with an unjust situation. To focus solely on his behavior and ignore the apparent POV pushing tactics being used would only increase the injustice. Gigs (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Africangenesis

I notice a strong dose of WP:TRUTH and some heavy-handed Wikilawyering in Africangenesis' replies. I've tried to explain WP:3RR (admittedly with somewhat less patience than I usually manage to employ) at his (or her?) talk page, but with, as far as I can tell, limited success. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Africangenesis is an old user who's already been warned about their conduct in an Arbitration? Huh - I had kinda assumed from things like voting "maintain" at AfD, and various other signs, that they were inexperienced and plausibly redeemable - a lot of grandstanding that leaked into personal attacks, but not so bad that perhaps it couldn't be fixed with a bit of nudging. I had hoped that a bit of discussion on CIVILity might sink in before they dug themselves too deep into their hole. Wikilawyering and combative, yes (maybe more combative than incivil, though that's six of one, a half dozen of the other). I might've even spoken in their defence, but given the old ArbCom warning, I think I'll pass. Hopefully they'll realise that nobody will have infinite patience (if it isn't too late already). WilyD 10:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a topic ban is called for here. Too much WP:IDHT basically. Perhaps 3-6 months, unless he has been sanctioned before. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's been disruptive for over 2 years and has received official sanctions warnings twice. I don't think a 6 month ban would make much sense, because evidently Ag would have no issue waiting it out. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Gigs, Why Leroux doesn't meet PROF has already been discussed countless times. Also see the DRV where the decision is being endorsed. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with the application of WP:PROF has seen articles kept for much more obscure academics. Full professorship and h-indexes lower than Leroux are a guaranteed keep. I think that's wrong and we shouldn't do it that way, but that's the normal practice.

The DRV is only evidence that the administrator acted reasonably, it doesn't really review whether the participating editors correctly applied prevailing notability standards. That's why I did not vote to overturn in the DRV, I think WilyD came to a reasonable conclusion since administrators often do not question the interpretation of notability standards by the voting editors, unless it's blatantly incorrect. Gigs (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that one side of the debate tries to shut down the other. Africangenesis engaged in battleground conduct against a number of editors engaged in civil POV pushing on Leroux. This should be considered a mitigating circumstance.- BorisG (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can people be engaged in civil POV pushing on Leroux? The article was deleted. The list criteria of Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming is quite clear and quite uncontroversial by requiring that scientists be notable; it's not POV pushing to not include Leroux. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Africangenesis inserting in a new results section? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Africangenesis

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

I'm trying, and failing, to see any reason why I shouldn't just indef block. Perhaps someone can persuade me? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Africangenesis; your accusing me of hyperbolic comments in your response to me leaves me with the inpression there wasn't much introspection on your part prior to posting. Questioning the competence of admins is a very good way to ensure accusations of a battleground mentality are bolstered. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that Africangenesis has a battleground approach to Climate Change. He had some previous trouble with it back in 2010, when this AE took place. For people who can't edit neutrally in a specific domain, topic bans can be considered. Since Africangenesis' record on admin boards about CC goes back two years, and his very first Wikipedia edits in 2007 were in the area of global warming, my thought is for an indefinite topic ban from the area of Climate Change. The ban could be appealed in six months if there is evidence of productive editing in other areas. If Africangenesis truly has no other interests than CC then this action would have the same effect as an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with EdJohnston. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree with Ed. T. Canens (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Closing. Africangenesis is indefinitely banned from the topic of Climate Change on all pages of Wikipedia, including user talk, admin noticeboards and WP:Arbitration enforcement. He may participate regarding CC in admin pages and AE whenever his own behavior has previously been mentioned. He may file appeals against his own sanctions to admins, to AE, or to Arbcom in the usual way. This action is under the authority of WP:AC/DS. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Magnussen, Sirswindon, and InigmaMan

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

Request concerning Paul Magnussen, Sirswindon, and InigmaMan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tijfo098 (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Paul Magnussen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sirswindon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
InigmaMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm filing this as a single request because there is little difference in their behavior and position. In some cases, one editor deletes content and another from this group then presents long argumentation in support of deletion on the talk page.

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: R&I discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

The case comes down to removal of material cited from secondary, academic sources, followed by long diatribes posted on the talk page which seldom address any particular content, except in their arbitrary conclusion(s). I invite admin to read the whole talk page, but here are some examples:

User:Paul Magnussen:

[149] block-delete with edit summary "Removing unreferenced POV material" (which was not unreferenced) supported by the following line of argumentation:
Furthermore, the terms "extreme right" and "extreme left" have become so confused and emotionally loaded and to become effectively meaningless.
'Right' (in this sense) is a POV term, now reduced to little more than a term of abuse
his politics are irrelevant as what he had for breakfast
I haven't noticed you leaping up and down about Leon Kamin or Stephen Jay Gould, whose politics apparently did dictate their science…
Supposing that your characterisation of these publications is correct and that Prof. Eysenck did actually write for them (as opposed to allowing publication of previously-written material), have you considered the possibility that he would write for anyone who paid his fee? Apparently not.
What would you say the are characteristics of the Extreme Right? Beating up the opposition, refusing to allow them to speak, threatening their children?
His scientific views are not in dispute. All that's been produced on his political views is name-calling and unsupported inference.
calling anyone "right-wing" is POV ipso facto.
You said (above) that we don't define terms. Could you tell me where to find the definitions we're using for "far right" and/or "extreme right"? They seem to me to be weasel words — specifically, just vague terms of abuse.
[150] Another removal of content, presumably explained by:
6Kb of text. Apparently, the argument is that although Eysenck has written several books about the genetics-intelligence link, we can't exemplify or discuss their content in his biography, even when secondary sources do that. Go figure. This long post also appears to be written with the intent to support the deletion of material performed by Sirswindon in diff #8 below.

User:Sirswindon:

[151] Deletion of material based on secondary sources as "hearsay"
[152] repeat
[153] claims the ref fails WP:V Text in original (German) is "In der April-Ausgabe der rechtsextremen Nationalzeitung von 1990 schreibt Eysenck einen Artikel, in dem er Sigmund Freud der Verschlagenheit und mangelnder Aufrichtigkeit zeiht, wobei zugleich auf Freuds jüdische Herkunft verwiesen wird."
[154] Pure denialism or more sophistry? You decide. Perhaps the author-publisher relationship is not a relationship.
[155] Appeals to Wikipedia definition of right-wing, just like the SPA InigmaMan (see its own section below).
[156] False dichotomy: "All or None".
[157] Advances his own prophecy.
[158] Deletes content claiming it's not in the source. Quote given here. Offered chance to self-revert there too. Not taken insofar.

User:InigmaMan (a WP:SPA):

[159] "Eysenck did not publish articles, the newspaper published them"
[160] Red herring. The article at the time did no say Eysenck was Far-right. It said "He wrote the preface to the book "Das unvergängliche Erbe" by Pierre Krebs, a far-right French writer, which was published by Krebs' Thule-Seminar.[32]"
[161] Quotes the Wikipedia article on far-right as an WP:OR argument to disprove what the sources said.
[162] Continues the same argument.

-- Tijfo098 (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Sirswindon continues:

[163] deletes the passage again
[164] explained by my IQ somehow?

-- Tijfo098 (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Paul Magnussen, Sirswindon, and InigmaMan

Statement by Paul Magnussen, Sirswindon, and InigmaMan

Paul Magnussen

Not much to add. I'm fairly familiar with Eysenck's work. I've tried to keep the article in line with Wikipedia principles, notably Reliable Sources and no POV material. Distortions of fact and name-calling are (it seems to me) not Reliable.

As secondary objective, I've also tried to keep the article balanced and to an appropriate size.

Of course, I'm not saying I haven't made any mistakes, although I've tried not to. Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should also add that I am not a sock-puppet: this is my real name, and I can provide evidence of this should it be required. Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Paul Magnussen, Sirswindon, and InigmaMan

Hi, Im also involved in this discussion. I'm fully agree with user Tijfo098! If you want an overview about the issue see: here. Please also have a look at this ANI. --WSC^® 10:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a case of tag teaming to remove properly sourced material from the biography of Eysenck for spurious reasons. Mathsci (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC) (A second apparently unrelated group of editors (YvelinesFrance, Zeromus1 and The Devil's Advocate) appears to be tag teaming on Talk:Race and intelligence. Similar issues of meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry apply there. The first two named accounts seem to have resonances with previously site-banned or topic-banned editors.)[reply]

YvelinesFrance, Zeromus1 appear to me to be the same editor (and if I'm not mistaken, when this possibility was raised on the Race and Intelligence talk page the response was the standard "why are you asking this, let's argue about other stuff instead", rather than a denial. There was another account with similar interests around but there's so many sock puppets on this article and topic area that I've gotten lost and I'm too lazy right now to go digging again. Volunteer Marek 05:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What completely spurious claims. Volunteer Marek accuses of sock-puppetry anyone who doesn't think the exact same way he does. YvelinesFrance (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Math, please do not accuse me of tag-teaming or meat-puppetry unless you can provide strong evidence for such a claim.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Advocate should address me as "Mathsci", not by a kindergarten shortening. His edits do appear to be supporting the tendentious edits of YvelinesFrance. Those edits are as problematic as were those of TrevelyanL85A2, now indefinitely blocked. Here is an example,[165] just one amongst many. The Devil's Advocate continues to ignore the advice of senior administrators [166] and arbitrators.[167] He acted as a proxy (sometimes called a "meatpuppet") for the DeviantArt team for close on two months, during which time he was in contact with at least one of them off-wiki. How much has changed? Mathsci (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This whole things smacks of an attempt to silence disagreeable users. It's funny that when the other side of the debate 'tag teams' nothing is claimed, however when a few editors with contrarian opinions appear, suddenly it's a conspiracy. Hopefully this is thrown out. Completely meritless. YvelinesFrance (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's how this topic area has been for a long time now. As soon as one set of sock/meat puppets gets banned, the users involved just turn around and create another set. And over and over and over again. I notice you're not even bothering to deny your connections to Zeromus1 (or whatever other accounts there might be). Volunteer Marek 23:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a completely unfounded claim with no evidence. There is no reason for me to even refute such ad hominem attacks. YvelinesFrance (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, that is a question for SPI, not AE.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Paul Magnussen, Sirswindon, and InigmaMan

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 872: / Line 872: @@
 :*Math, please do not accuse me of tag-teaming or meat-puppetry unless you can provide strong evidence for such a claim.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 22:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
+::The Devil's Advocate should address me as "Mathsci", not by a kindergarten shortening. His edits do appear to be [[WP:TAG TEAM|supporting the tendentious edits]] of {{userlink|YvelinesFrance}}. Those edits are as problematic as were those of TrevelyanL85A2, now indefinitely blocked. Here is an example,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roscelese&diff=prev&oldid=516115455] just one amongst many. The Devil's Advocate continues to ignore the advice of senior administrators [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MastCell&diff=prev&oldid=515711263] and arbitrators.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MastCell&diff=prev&oldid=515332190] He acted as a proxy (sometimes called a "meatpuppet") for the DeviantArt team for close on two months, during which time he was in contact with at least one of them off-wiki. How much has changed?  [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 00:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 :*This whole things smacks of an attempt to silence disagreeable users. It's funny that when the other side of the debate 'tag teams' nothing is claimed, however when a few editors with contrarian opinions appear, suddenly it's a conspiracy. Hopefully this is thrown out. Completely meritless. [[User:YvelinesFrance|YvelinesFrance]] ([[User talk:YvelinesFrance|talk]]) 23:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 :::Because that's how this topic area has been for a long time now. As soon as one set of sock/meat puppets gets banned, the users involved just turn around and create another set. And over and over and over again. I notice you're not even bothering to deny your connections to Zeromus1 (or whatever other accounts there might be).<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Volunteer Marek&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 23:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards