Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive109
POVbrigand
| This has been open for nine days, and no sanctions or comments from uninvolved admins appear to be forthcoming. As such, I am closing this with a warning to POVbrigand to maintain the appropriate level of decorum for a controversial article, and that a topic ban may result from failure to heed the warning. All participants here are requested to keep their comments clear and concise in future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning POVbrigand
Topic Banning seems most suitable as it is a long term issue, he appears to have a major conflict of interest with the article as is seen from the vast amount of material on cold fusion on his user pages as noted by others. He thinks many editors are "Many editors don't have a clue and don't want to have a clue. Many editors are pathological deniers who believe they are doing wikipedia a huge favour by fighting off and deleting anything they think "is not worth" of being in an encyclopedia." [1] [2][3]
See [4] for some diffs. A cursory glance at Cold Fusion and Energy Catalyzer may also be helpful. If more diffs are required I can get more. This list isn't exhaustive.
Direct diffs: [5] He refers to me having a "prejudiced POV" [6] and when I complain about this characterization as a personal attack against me he misconstrues another editors comments to make what appears to me another personal attack. THe diff he refers to is when I commented on a thread where someone was making a wikiquette assistance complaint. [7] (original complaint here: [8]) He has a battlefield mentality when he refers to me being a "team mate" of another editor with [9]. More teams: [10]. [11] "I will just keep working on the cold fusion article. I have no interest in fighting off even more ignorant editors who think they are the defenders of the thruth." [12] He also attempts to wikilaywer to get his way such as requesting reliable sources to prove that a source is unreliable: [13]. The source at issue was a scientific journal where one of the papers used had "review" of 1 day. Several uninvolved editors on RSN noted that it was unreliable: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Current_Science (note that when he first brought it to RSN he tried to represent it as a magazine not a journal when it had already been pointed out that it was not a magazine [14], [15]). Unnecessarily assuming bad faith: [16] He is attempting to consistently wikilaywer to have NASA mentioned in the article even though the scientist concerned expressed serious doubts about Cold fusion saying that it was not reproducible etc [17]. He finds it necessary to attack the scientific ability of others (although he does not appear to be a scientist): [20] Comment "What is your next defense, that India is a country you don't like ?" doesn't seem to be WP:AGF. [21]
Accusing me of policy shopping: [22]. Mid discussion at RSN he kept reinserting the line under consideration when the consensus was against its inclusion: [23], [24]. (it was not until a separate secondary source was found that due weight was established) I should mention that I have no interest in Cold Fusion and the Energy Catalyzer beyond ensuring the wikipedia articles do not expound fringe theories. I came across the issues with the articles solely through the fringe theories noticeboard. I have no more interest in Cold Fusion than any other fringe science wikipedia article. It seems there is a group of editors who are trying to make Cold Fusion seem mainstream by the careful cherry picking of sources (and in fact they argue it is mainstream). Latest edits: talk) 16:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC) ]
84.106.* has also taken onto himself to try and blank this section: [25] talk) 20:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC) ]
For those concerned I updated my filing, the original filing is here: [27] talk) 20:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC) ]
POVbrigand still finds it necessary to make digs at me on the talk page in discussions I am not involved in: [28] talk) 10:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC) ]
There are other single purpose accounts on the two cold fusion related pages which are also being used similarly.
Discussion concerning POVbrigandStatement by POVbrigand
I have completed my statement, please see my "Full Response" below. For easy reference and as an extra effort I have analyzed all the diffs one by one and provided my reply to them. You can see them here User:POVbrigand/Noticeboards#Filing_dissected. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Some comments I
I must say that I am shocked and saddened by the replies for other editors. Knowing their position and willingness to get me banned or blocked is not very comforting.
User:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris and User:Robert_Horning to comment on this case.
Full responseAddressing each point of the requestor’s updated filing separately would definitely blow this case out of proportion and would be counter-productive. Other editors have already commented here that I "waste their time" with my contributions on the talk page. I think that the length of requestor’s filing and the comments so far clearly show that the fault of wasting time in discussions is not solely on my side. I feel that with his update the requestor has presented a huge collection of contributions (diffs) that he has taken out of the original context to present them here in his own context, especially the bolded ones. Obviously I feel they are cherry picked and misrepresent my conduct. (see User:POVbrigand/Noticeboards#Filing_dissected for my detailed reply) It appears to me that the request for enforcement is partially driven by an antipathy for SPAs and once more I am confronted with baseless allegations that I am a sock-puppeteer. The Arbcom enforcement however does not prohibit SPA accounts from editing the topic. Sock-puppet investigations can be done by a checkuser if there is a profound suspicion. I believe the topic of SPA and sockpuppet do not need to be addressed here. That leaves us with two main topics: Civility and NPOV, 2 of the 5 pillars of WP’s fundamental principles. CivilityI am accused of using personal attacks frequently. However, other editors have assessed this in the past (on Wikiquette assistance) and did not see any personal attacks. I am baffled that the same diffs are brought up here again. As AndyTheGrump has noted below the discussion are sometimes heated because it is a contentious topic. I use clear and strong wording to voice my opinion if I feel that that is appropriate. Some wording may be regarded as “overly strident”, but I take care not to become uncivil, as other editors have also noted below. I would like to highlight that the requestor did not object when other editors were ridiculed by comparison of cold fusion with "unicorn poop" and I am very shocked to see that one of the diffs the requestor provides here as evidence of a "personal attack" was my complaint regarding this ridiculing which I referred to as "babbling". [30], [31]. I think that is extreme cherry picking. On another occasion I was attacked by User:TenOfAllTrades who accused me of sock puppeting and being a stubborn POV pusher with an “I-didn't hear that attitude” after I had conceded in a discussion. The requestor did not protest this personal attack either. I assume it is fair to conclude that the requestor is not really interested in generally improving civility and that his motives to accuse me of personal attacking him must be other. NPOVContent disputes are portrayed here as "advocating a minority point of view", ie POV-pushing. I feel that when an article can improve on NPOV by adding reliably sourced content regarding the "minority POV", those additions should not be equated to "advocating". In the case of Cold Fusion, the majority POV (=mainstream science) is that it is proven that it doesn't work. The minority POV is that there might be something unknown going on after all. A common misconception is that the minority POV is solely propagated by shady con-men trying trick investers into paying money and that many are blinded by the propects of limitless free energy and have become gullible. In fact, the minority POV is dominated by several credible scientists from renowned institutions, who are researching the topic, according to RS. Such institutions are ENEA, SRI, University of Missouri, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, MIT, Purdue University, NASA, SPAWAR, Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). I fully agree that it is a minority POV, but not one that is dismissible. I also feel that mentioning a selection of these institutions to illustrate that, contrary to popular belief, research is indeed happening does not constitute to malicious "advocacy". I understand very well that the article should not be turned into a long list of "ongoing research", but it is not malicious "POV pushing" to add things like that to the article. Again, they are all verifiable by RS, but as other editors have mentioned, the reliability of sources is often disputed and thus another cause for long discussions. I really try to be NPOV, there are numerous times where I have edited or discussed to advance "the majority view" to achieve NPOV, where I deleted non-RS “minority POV” sources or where I argued that adding some “minority POV” facts would be undue. Many more than I will add here for reference: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] I came to this topic mid 2011, since then several interesting new facts about the minority POV have appeared. I do not think that it would be a good idea to include all of that to the article, but some are certainly worth it. I have also discussed such interesting facts on the Noticeboards to see what other editors think about it. For instance, in a recent discussion on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Washington_Post_on_Cold_Fusion I asked the question if recent developments could be explained as indications that the mainstream view on cold fusion is changing to taking it slightly more seriously. Please note that User:Mathsci immediately replied that I was "advocating personal views" and implied that I was misusing the noticeboard. He argued that the Washington Post "does not usually count as WP:RS for writing wikipedia articles". Yet, later on in the discussion other editors were willing to understand and somewhat agree to the point I was making. I am blamed for wasting other editors’ time in the discussions. I agree that often I have to discuss at length to counter many objections, but some of the objections are just silly, like the one just mentioned about Wash. Post "usually not being RS". I think that some of the objections may be fueled by blatantly not assuming good faith and that others are driven by a different understanding of NPOV. A good example of a long discussion is about the mentioning Yeong E. Kim's theory proposal in Energy Catalyzer. It started off with the addition of a mainstream science blog explaining the mainstream majority POV to which I didn’t object. Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_10#.27ScienceBlogs.27_article_on_the_E-Cat. After that addition, in order to keep NPOV, I proposed to also mention Yeong E. Kim's theory proposal which led to a very long discussion, which took also a lot of my time addressing all the complaints and digging up further evidence to convince other editors of the legitimacy of my proposal: Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_10#Yeong_E._Kim_paper, Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_10#RSN_yeong, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_113#Few_body_systems. Please also note that only after this very long discussion the addition of the one-liner on Kim was finally accepted, however an uninvolved editor on RS/N had assessed from the very beginning that the addition was not undue and that there was no objection to add it. Yet, I feel that they made me go through hoops to get a simple one-liner in. Thus, the complaint that I am the only cause of long discussions and that I waste their time is completely unfair. FinallyI have always adhered to the WP principles and the WP spirit and have cooperated with Arbcom enforcement:
My point of view is not that cold fusion "is real" and that this fact must be propagated here in WP. My point of view is that "there exists a significant minority view that some unknown effect is happening that warrants further research and that research is ongoing". I feel the WP-readership should be offered a fair insight into that minority view together with the majority view. I think that Cold Fusion is currently fairly NPOV, but there are a few heated content disputes ongoing that led to this filing.
I feel that if I, and some other editors, would be topic banned, the article would very soon only present the mainstream science majority POV. See Enric Naval’s comment “Once he is topic banned, we'll have to see if the problem still continues and if more editors need to be topic banned.” I agree that there is a problem and that I am part of that problem, but not the only one; it is a difficult topic, with a lot of emotions, without participation of impartial contributors. I call for mediation on the current content disputes “Current Science” and “NASA” where verifiability, reliability of sources, undue weight and other content guidelines will be assessed. I have no problem with accepting the outcome and I am ready to learn from it. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning POVbrigandComments by uninvolved MathsciThis single purpose account has been editing in an odd way and this has been the case for quite a while. He has a subpage recording reports WP:BATTLEFIELD approach to the topic area and in addition what would appears to be a form of advocacy. The recent new claims, mentioned in the original request, create an instability on the articles and their talk pages which sucks up the energy of those editors monitoring the pages. Any pressure to do a complete rewrite of the articles is out of place and represents tendentious editing.
These comments are very general, since like others I only watch from afar and do not edit articles in this topic area, but this seems to be the problem here. Like Enric Naval, I took part in the relevant ArbCom Case (WMC & Abd) where standard discretionary sanctions were put into force in the general topic area of cold fusion. This is the first time a request has been made in this topic area to somebody other than Abd, now community banned from WP and indefinitely blocked on various other projects including Meta. Mathsci (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Note from TenOfAllTradesThe single-purpose account POVbrigand was created to distance this editor's behavior on cold fusion topics from the reputation and history of his previous account(s). He states explicitly on his userpage that he may choose to go back to whatever his old account was whenever he loses interest in cold fusion. What should we make of an aggressive username combined with a desire to shelter his 'real' Wikipedia reputation from the consequences of his editing in this area? He feels freer to engage in disruptive conduct in this area because he doesn't have any 'skin in the game'; he can always go back to the seven-year-old account name he had before, and carry on with his primary identity intact. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Comment from formerly involved user MangoeI had already suggested this action was needed back in November. He also appeared at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Washington Post on Cold Fusion pushing a extremely weak, "some day we will all have flying cars"-style article. This constant rain of not-really-reliable and primary source material on these articles is becoming extremely wearing. A temporary block at least would allow everyone else a chance to take a breather on this. Mangoe (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I recommend a topic ban to "cold fusion topics, broadly constructed". --Enric Naval (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC) P.S.: I am not asking a ban because he hold a specific view, but because he keeps bringing low quality sources, or sources that don't support what he and others want to insert in the article. And then editors have to We already topic banned Pcarbonn (twice!) for his civil POV pushing, and then we banned User:Abd for the same reason, and User:Objetivist for the same same reason over several areas here, and User:JedRothwell for not-very-civil POV pushing. Those editors also kept trying to push low quality sources to promote the same fringe POV as POVBrigand (that cold fusion works, is considered mainstream, etc.) The article has improved as a result of those topic bans, and the talk page became workable again. Now it's risking to become again a swamp of advocacy, with more new editors adding to the advocacy of low quality sources. There are more editors that are giving problems, but POVBrigand is the most problematic editor and he has been going at it for months. Once he is topic banned, we'll have to see if the problem still continues and if more editors need to be topic banned. --~~ The section "Proposed solution by IP" is authored by 84.106.26.81 (talk · contribs), who is also advocating a fringe POV in cold fusion and some other articles like Dowsing. You can see him removing as a personal attack a detailed explanation of why POVBrigand had been wasting the time of other editors[55], and removed as an uncivil edit an explanation of why one of his sources was absolutely unreliable[56]. He also assumes bad faith of the editors that are just reflecting the views of mainstrem science [57]. In Talk:Dowsing he is pushing a fringe POV via unreliable sources. His advice should be taken with a very big grain of salt. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC) POVBrigand was never oficially notified in his talk page, but there is a warning box at the top of both Talk:Cold fusion and Talk:Energy Catalyzer, and it was advertised in the talk pages here and [58][59], and he replied to two differents comment in two different pages that mentioned the sanctions[60][61]. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Comment by involved Robert HorningWhile I will be the first to admit that POVbrigand certainly comes to editing these topics with a clear bias in terms of being in favor of cold fusion and a bent to promote the technology, I fail to see what the real issues are that are causing all of the fuss. In some ways, this looks like an attempt by a group of editors to squelch alternate points of view from participation in the development of these articles as well, of which I would point out that many of those bringing this complaint up at the moment seem to be of a contrary point of view. These cold fusion related articles clearly are battleground articles that seem to attract a whole bunch of biased edits, including from anonymous users and users who are simply new to the concept of Wikipedia. What I have not seen from this particular user is flagrant reverting of the edits of others, and a quick glance through some of the recent articles that I am looking at seem to show generally good faith edits that may generally be considered productive and useful to the articles. There may be disputes in terms of the quality of the sources being used, and as somebody who certainly has a POV bias there are grounds to at least review his edits, but I fail to see how that falls out of normal editorial processes that exist on Wikipedia. POVbrigand certainly has been active on the talk pages, and to my view has not edited contrary to consensus achieved on those various talk pages. There may be some particular edits that would raise some questions, but I fail to see a consistent pattern of refusing to follow general Wikipedia policies. That is the very nature of editing on Wikipedia, that we must learn to get along with others that may even have a very different POV from our own. I can't speak for de.wikipedia, and for that matter his actions there are completely irrelevant in terms of what is happening here on en.wikipedia. As for a "single purpose account", again I fail to grasp the relevancy in terms of a general topic ban other than it will take something of interest to this particular user and end his participation on something he cares about. On these particular topics and articles which POVbrigand has been editing, there are several editors who have expressed strong POVs on those topics where I have seen reverts and warring edits that I have disagreed with. This particular editor, POVbrigand, is not even the most belligerent of those editor either from my viewpoint. I would just like somebody who is impartial to actually review these accusations with an unjaundiced viewpoint to realistically see what is happening and not squelch one particular voice because he doesn't quite share the same POV as other editors who are involved. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Comment by involved AndyTheGrumpI have been involved in several heated debates with POVbrigand regarding the Cold Fusion article however, as I've had little to do with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC) ]
Note from anonymous IPThose considering imposing penalties here should please consider the following sources which have recently been discussed on the cold fusion talk page without having been added to the article: NASA [62], CERN, DTRA, MIT, the Navy, SRI International, and Mitt Romney (audio.) Also please note that the mediation for cold fusion decided to include a much broader variety of material than the subsequent arbitration now allows, due to strict de facto content restrictions which have allowed editors to almost completely remove the point of view that the topic is legitimate and the difficulties have been due to experimental error as described in [63]. It might be helpful to consider whether that result relative to the WP:NPOV policy was the intent of the committee's decision. 83.142.230.178 (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Proposed solution by IP
This makes it clear the above are comments that try but fail to fabricate additional evidence against the user.
This is your excuse for a topic ban Enric?
This is your excuse for a topic ban Mangoe? A fabricated "flying cars" story?
This is your excuse for a topic ban TenOfAllTrades? This report has no divs in it so you decided to make something up? lol? "consequences"? He didn't actually do anything wrong. Is the user name now on trial?
This is your excuse for a topic ban Mathsci? To stop all editing and save the wiki? Cool story bro. I don't even know anymore if it was the "instability", the "reputation & consequences", the "flying car" or if it was the "against of mainstream science" part that made me laugh hysterically. But boy did I laugh. I do agree we should accuse this user of something to protect science from the evil that is cold fusion but I'm not sure if that single div is really good enough Wolfie-. There is nothing wrong with his posting. It looks to me like you are spoiling everything by using such a poor div. Maybe it will still work out as a provocation I don't know but please don't let it happen again. You've made the entire strategic-writing team look foolish. Or wait no, you got the entire strategic writing team banned indefinitely. That would be the correct response to this. Here are POVbrigands recent contributions to cold fusion:
We don't have better contributors to "cold fusion" and/or related articles. Non of the above posters are this productive. Within the scope of the topic this is our most productive editor. We don't need any "better", the contributions are clearly good enough to fit the guidelines. Extra points are granted for the additional effort made by the user to answer many lame talk page comments. Some not even worthy of a reply. The editors who want him topic banned are the kind of editors who repeatedly remove valid material from the article. Editors who only remove things, even calling themselves "editors monitoring the pages". Who will drive by and shoot at you that "a complete rewrite of the articles is out of place". Evoking the rule of "tendentious editing". Behavior designed to shut down the productive editor. Quite successfully I should add. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Comment from CollectAndy's comments are spot on. The user has not been blocked at all (and I trust will not be blocked by any involved admin as a result of this complaint), amd has certainly not reached the level at which arbitration enforcement would normally be considered at all. Have a cup of tea, folks. Collect (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment by mostly uninvolved GRubanI participate on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and "met" POVBrigand and the merry band at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_113#Few_body_systems. The discussion there, though long and argumentative, stayed civil on all sides. Other than that, I think I'm uninvolved in Cold Fusion broadly speaking (though I've been an editor for quite a few years, so might have forgotten some things). It's certainly not one of my major topics. As for this arbitration request, however, I have to say, I have rarely seen a pudding so thoroughly over-egged.
Then there is the supporting comments:
In short, I'm with Collect. POVBrigand could, and should, be nicer at times, but it can be difficult at times when the people he is arguing against use tactics like these. Besides the culled instances of temper (and even there nothing rises to ban levels), he is a valuable contributor; I've only seen one instance of his work in that RS/N issue, but he did an excellent job there, improving the article in the face of harsh opposition. My proposal is that the arbitrators make the following statement: "Cold Fusion editors should ... chill." --GRuban (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning POVbrigand
|
Anonimu
| See comments in results section |
|---|
| 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 Anonimu
Besides the "technical" violations described above, which only happened in a short time since the last arbitration enforcement request in April 2011, Anonimu has been engaged in a rampage of WP policy violations and very suspicious activities, as follows:
While it is ok to write an academic article about WP:PUSH related to extremist views, this is a huge problem.
He constantly fends accusations by attempting to falsely portray himself as some sort of "hero" trying to "save" Wikipedia from "nationalists" and "fascists", a typical, decades-old Soviet propaganda/cover. The fact that his user page has a morbid quote which reads "Viermuiesc fasciştii printre morţi şi tunuri." (in approximate translation "The fascists are swarming among the dead and guns") speaks for itself (mind you, other Wikipedians have user boxes, contributions and friendly messages). It is apparently a quote from Union of Wallachia and Moldavia in 1862, against the wishes of the majority of Romanians. Apparently Anonimu put it on his user page after returning from a previous ban, as a sign of a "positive return". With such a radical and aggressive position, I fail to see anything positive coming out of his contributions in the future, while the past and present already speak for themselves.
In the past I personally made countless attempts to invite him to collaboration, team work, and to created an enjoyable environment around the articles of shared interests. But by now it had become beyond doubt for me that this seems hopeless and impossible given his activities and agendas. The end result is never ending disruptions, a negative environment and lot of time spent trying recover articles from his disruptive edits or filing enforcement requests instead of working on quality content and something enjoyable. And above all, I fail to see how he respects ANY of the conditions imposed after his ban was suspended. The majority of his "contributions" are blatant breaches of these conditions imposed into him when his ban was provisionally suspended:
He also violated the closing provisions of the last arbitration enforcement request:
I don't care if someone is communist, anti-communist, fascist or anti-fascist, pro-Soviet or anti-Soviet or whatever in his personal life (although being pro-communist or pro-Soviet in 2012 after knowing about the WP:ARBMAC conditions I think it is big problem.
You may ask yourselves, why is this WP:ROMANIA, contributing over 1200 images, and with over 25k edits globally, I've been constantly WP:STALKed , sabotaged by Anonimu and/or colliding head on with his anti-Romanian views and activities. It is impossible not too. So for me, this is not personal and I am not here to make a profile on Anonimu or deal with arbitrations, but it has become unbearable to contribute in such a negative environment. But, as you can see, the majority of reported incidents are with a variety of other users and not with myself.
Because of all this situation and never ending disruptive editing, I am sadly forced again to request a thorough review of his case.
Minimally a block
Discussion concerning AnonimuStatement by AnonimuI recommend admins actually check the diffs. If they really prove anything, is harassment on the part of Codrinb. The accusations of 1RR and incivility are simply spurious. Basically all the edits in the diff section are in the current version of the articles and were confirmed by other users or by talk page consensus. The others are simply reverts of simple vandalism (including BLP vandalism on Victor Ponta).Considering the rest of the statement is a long diatribe of slanderous comments and abject attacks against my persona, I request the user be sanctioned, and an interaction ban be imposed to prevent continued harassment. Anonimu (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Considering the severity and vileness of the personal attacks, I request the "Aditional comments" section of the comment be oversighted after the process is finished (I have no problem with the diffs, just with the defamatory statements.Anonimu (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I must point out that CodrinB doesn't seem to be able to make the difference between an edit and a revert. Thus I reiterate my request to any admin reading this to check the diffs. Anonimu (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning AnonimuUser Anonimu seems to be very interested in a limited number of topics, namely dealing with Romania, Moldova and the Communist past of these states, and while this is perfectly legitimate and acceptable, the constant politically motivated tension that the user has encouraged - is not. As is the case with a number of historical and political related topics, these articles deal with a number of contentious issues, such as the role of communism in the two countries, the impact of Soviet occupation, the identity of the inhabitants of former Bessarabia, etc. While one cannot deny the occasionally positive effects of communist administration, user Anonimu has constantly and tirelessly pushed for a very one-sided interpretation related to these issues. What is however more concerning is that when other views are likewise presented in a way as to reflect the plethora of opinions on a given subject, Anonimu has constantly deleted, reverted and erased any other view except those reflecting his own. At least on two occasions, I believe, he has actually been warned about engaging in edit wars. Contrary to the comments above, the user's edits are not reflective of the pages as they stand now and are under no means reflective of a consensus. It would be great if Anonimu would step back and take a look at these comments and objectively assess himself whether there 'may just be some truth' to the issues brought up here. Having said that, I must also say that Anonimu has also contributed by creating maps or articles on a number of lesser known historical figures and I respect his contributions in those fields: I think that Wikipedia and its readers have only to gain if Anonimu decides to work on articles that - as described above - deal with Russian-born Romanian communist figures (as long as of course the negative effects of communism are not downplayed in the process). However, a topic ban on the really contentious topics related to Romania, Romanians, Moldova, Moldovans and the role of communism in these states as well as a serious warning would probably go a long way in ending some of the edit wars and adding neutrality to some of these topics.Dapiks (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
While some diffs may be more damning than others, the salient point is that we have here a pattern of incivility, a pattern of anything-but impeccable behavior, and a pattern of 1RR breaches. This following conditions still in effect allowing Anonimu to return to editing, and this following a previous AE report where it was very clearly emphasized to Anonimu that the conditions are still in effect. Unfortunately for Anonimu, spurious accusations of "harassment", "slanderous comments and abject attacks against my persona" and "severity and vileness of the personal attacks" should not and will not deflect from the main issue, which is his misconduct. Codrinb is a hard-working, productive contributor who volunteers his time in actually improving the project, adding content and bringing sense and structure to Romania-related pages. Unsurprisingly, his patience with Anonimu has been exhausted after numerous encounters with the latter's policy violations. Given how many productive editors he has rankled, it would not be an exaggeration to say that Anonimu has not only exhausted the patience of Codrinb, but also of the community as a whole. And given the undeniable pattern of miscreancy, I fully endorse calls by Codrinb and by Dapiks for at a minimum a topic ban from areas in which he finds himself in constant contentiousness and where he has proved unable to edit constructively, or simply a block. - Biruitorul Talk 23:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the long list of violations in itself is quite indicative of a 'problem'. And the list is by no means one of "less-than-convincing violations". But to answer your comment on the census, I do have to point out that although yes, there is a section labelled "Naţionalitate" and while in theory respondents were free to declare whatever they wanted including the aforementioned "Klingonian", 1) it is a very well known fact that observers noted how respondents were "encouraged" to declare "Moldovan" over "Romanian" (nobody disputes this and even in the edit wars this issue has never been called into question). 2) Secondly, whatever data respondents provide, the statistics institute does adjust responses such as "Klingon" for example. Do not expect to see a 0.02% Klingon population among the official data actually released. Moreover, some sources have argued that the same happened with a number of "Romanian" cases as well and in previous versions of the article a statement did exist about the issue (with a cited source) but I guess in the long line of edit wars somehow that "disappeared" as well. 3) Thirdly, respondents could indeed declare only one nationality - the space next to 'nationality' did not allow for one to declare "Moldovan-Romanian" for example. Lastly, if one reads the census data released, I think that it is quite self-evident that the official statistics do not include multiple responses as in the case of the Canadian Census for example. The resident-population in the country is divided among "Moldovans", "Russians", "Ukrainians", etc. without reporting a rubric for "Moldovan-Ukrainain" for example. This in itself I think proves - without the further need of explanation - that respondents could not declare more than 1 ethnic origin or declare "WHATEVER they wished" as it is assumed above. For that reason, the section that Anonimu deleted was actually quite sourced (just look over the rubrics released and you will notice the lack of multiple national responses). Dapiks (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not going to comment or indulge in lengthy debates here about accusations and counter accusations. I already brought enough evidence and illustrated here a very long list of incivility, violations and very negative behavior. I didn't know that there is another "Theodor Balş", a Communist poet, although it is a very weird coincidence. Mea culpa for that but I am not reading much about communists. This is not my topic of interest at all. There is no bad faith here, but the quote from that poet still remains morbid and illustrative of an entire attitude, regardless of who the author is. The problem is who puts it on his user page and acts upon these ideas. Yes, some, many, of the diffs are also content disputes and can be addressed individually. And yes, over the years Anonimu learned how to win disputes and game the system. And yes, some of his comments on his almost daily "revert work" can look very convincing. However, despite his claims, downright lies, that consensus is reached upon his daily reverts, Anonimu almost NEVER starts a discussion on the talk pages of the articles before his reverts. That you can easily check if you have the patience. But you have to look deeper, as I didn't bring this diffs here to dispute the content. It is simply the wrong forum for that. And I can tell you (and you can see it from my edits) that I am personally not interested in Communism and Moldova. But I am interested in and disputing the incivility, the violations and the general negative behaviour here. I am glad to notice that many users came forward with the same issue about Anonimu's behaviour. At least I know I am not drunk when I see this obvious un-academic behaviour. So this is not Codrinb vs Anonimu or Anonimu vs Moldova. This is Anonimu vs his unacceptable behaviour. This is my last comment. I am busy working on many other projects and I don't like to waste time and dwell in negativity.--Codrin.B (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
This is beyond what I expected even from you Anonimu and I was really, really (!) ready to no write anything here anymore. I've been living in US for over 12 years, my English is not perfect yet is not my mother tongue. And yes, I don't like how Americans spell color and behavior, yet I am a US Citizen. US is a great and free country, where I can use the spelling of my choice, en WP doesn't belong to US, and this is not an article! I already made public who I am and where I live. I don't hide behind a name like "Anonimu", with near empty user and talk pages, with the only witness of their emptiness being the histories of your reverts against a multitude of warnings and even blocks accumulated over years! This is just another fine example of how Anonimu drives everyone nuts. Others write for me, really?!! Is that all you have to say against continuous blatant violations. All the 1RRs, edit wars violations reported above are real, they are the work of Anonimu and no one else. You can use all tactics on the book, but Wikipedia has a wonderful feature called "Page History" and if you have patience, you can see everything. I really hate the fact that I have to spend my time to write such a report and respond to all these miserable attacks. I ask, no, I really, really insist to the willing administrators to take the time and review in depth the entire activity of this individual. All his violations, all his reverts, all his fights, all the patterns of incivility and extremism. It will save a lot of time for everyone in the future.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Can I suggest that rather engaging in this unseemly back-and-forth 'debate', that those wishing for action to be taken against Anonimu select one or two of the most significant diffs, which they see as clear evidence of wrongdoing, explain exactly what is wrong, and then leave the issue to be sorted out by uninvolved parties? At the moment we've got a huge list of diffs, and selecting a few at random I couldn't see anything of significance - it isn't reasonable to expect people to trawl through the lot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I am really not sure how a case like this can be dismissed on the grounds of verbosity of the reporter. There are a number of clarifications that need to be made:
But even if you choose to ignore this second section in its entirety, the section "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it" should give you that concise list. While I understand the need to be concise, I am not versed with these kind of reports (honestly this is not why I joined Wikipedia as a contributor) and I wasn't aware of a limit of diffs. I thought the more documented the case, the better. I am puzzled but happy to bring any needed clarify or to summarize anything that needs to be summarized. My intention was not bombard anyone with a plethora of information or diffs, to give more work to overloaded ARBCOM members but to present a very complex case in detail.--Codrin.B (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I must intervene (hope it is not too late) and mention that what previous users mentioned is largely true. I think it is obvious that the main edits by anonimu are reverts in the Romania/Moldavia topics. It appears that anonimu confuses pro-romanian edits with pro-romanian-nationalistic-fascist-nazi edits. Most of my contributions were reverted by user anonimu. I must point the fact that the user refused to use the talk page with me but overused the edit button. Some times the user simply reverted with no reason a claim by 4 sources. This user was banned in the past for 2-3 times (i think) on the same grounds so it could not be the case for a "public relations campaign" against him. It is obvious that he has a negative attitude and harasses other users and i am not sure that he can bring contributions to wikipedia. Although he considers pro-romanian edits as nationalistic he also regards pro-soviet-russian-ukrainian-communist edits as normal, as best viewed in the difference betwen the article Khotin Uprising with wich he has no problem. Although he had numerous reverts and edits to the first article, he used his edit power to leave the second article intact.Prometeu (talk )
I think it is pretty obvious that Anonimu is being subjected here to a gang up of sorts, by a clique of editors, with whom there are content disputes. I have let Anonimu know that his interpretation of this request is not unique -- ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 09:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC) ]
Russavia, I can't believe the nerve you have to come here to coach Anonimu on how to game the system with lies about my language skills, to call admins clueless and make outrageous threats for everyone to drop one of the worse cases of incivility, violations and extremism. You are the one ganging up, by clearly coming to the help of your fellow Russophile (as you declared yourself and it is obvious from your activities), despite his extreme views and attitudes, attempting to steer the discussion about Anonimu's despicable behaviour to some sort of anti-Russian conspiracy. The one and only reason so many users are here to make statements not at all favorable to Anonimu, it is his OWN behavior (OPPOSITE to impeccable) and his repeated failures/lack of interest to collaborate and communicate respectfully. Given your long history of blocks, you should be the last person coming here with empty threats. --Codrin.B (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I had to notify the parties mentioned in the report, which is not only fair but as far as know standard procedure and I used a standard template: {{Arbcom notice}}. It is not my fault that Anonimu created so many conflicts and insulted so many Wikipedians, and this only in the short time frame from the last enforcement request in April 2011. Only a handful of the users who Anonimu pulled into newer conflicts since April 2011 have been notified, per above. Imagine going back to 2006 and notify everyone who was reverted without any notice, everyone he has insulted or attacked all these years? The list is huge and yes, that could be canvassing, yet could be very revealing. Also, as you can see, there are statements here from Wikipedians which I didn't notify/mention at all, and yet, they still came forward. Russavia, again you seem to be actively involved with all your energy to try all the tricks in the book to block this report, while refusing to focus on the subject at hand: the large amount of violations, edit wars, incivility that Anonimu is involved in despite prior warnings/blocks. You are not only incriminating him further with these machinations, but you are doing it to yourself as well. It is too obvious what you are doing. You can try to shoot the messenger, but the problems won't go away simply because Anonimu refuses to address or respect any of the conditions imposed on him at the last block and yet again at the enforcement request review last year. If he somehow gets away again, he will continue to stir conflict and violate rules with even more impunity, but others will report him again and again. Of that, I am sure. It is impossible for someone to have so many conflicts and claim innocence nonchalantly and forever. I mean, look at Anonimu in 2007 trying to use sock puppets to get unblocked and promising that he will be good to all the people... --Codrin.B (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I think Anonimu's incivilities are a smaller than what they were when he was first banned, as the evidence above suggests. His edit wars also seem smaller in scope. I have had interactions with Anonimu before his year long ban, when he used to insult me and other wikipedians in Romanian and range of other incivilities. His disruptions back then were a lot clearer and more evident [241]. I understand why this thread would be dismissed as tl;dr, as perhaps too much evidence was presented by Codrin.B. But, I would however ask you will to look at some of the evidence presented, not necessarily all, to see if in fact this user has violated the terms of the suspension of his ban (that used to be on his talk page [242] ). I fear this user is on track to becoming again the disruptive influence as he was sanctioned for before.
If you do find the terms of his suspension were violated. I think the solution should be a topic ban rather than a general ban, as this user has not resumed the gross incivilities he exhibited in the past. -- Fsol (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Result concerning Anonimu
Oversight may not be used for those purposes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Al Ameer son
| No action taken. T. Canens (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Al Ameer son
(Not sure how to check this.)
In order to expedite a questionable DYK (Template:Did you know nominations/Khader Adnan), Al Ameer appears to be removing any critical information that might delay it. The article is clearly heavily POV, as strongly evidenced by the fact that the images used in the article are the political cartoons of Carlos Latuff -- a hyper-partisan of the conflict.
Discussion concerning Al Ameer sonStatement by Al Ameer son
Comments by others about the request concerning Al Ameer son
adequate" discussion on consensus. (and im not saying consensus cant change)
Statement by 71.204.165.25 (talk)A clear and unambiguous violation of 1RR, and the excuses being made, that 3 editors agreed with the reverts, or that that the reverts were to corect "inaccurate" information are wholly beside the point. 1RR is a bright red line, and it was breached. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Biosketch (involved)As a matter of principle I don't involved myself in AEs that don't concern me directly, but seeing as I've been referenced by name in this case I'll try and add some clarity at least for the sake of the Admins considering the Request.
Result concerning Al Ameer son
|
Tiamut
| No action taken. T. Canens (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Tiamut
Tiamut was one of the original parties to ARBPIA, so I don't believe a formal "warning " is needed, nonetheless, there are numerous ones:
Tiamut has a long history of edit warring in the topic area (as noted above, her conduct was the subject of the original ARBPIA), and a corresponding block log consisting of 5 blocks for edit warring in the topic area, the last one a week long block. @Tiamut: You recent spat of edits reverted numerous things. I picked out the most obvious revert, to make it easier for the admins monitoring this board to see it was a revert. But there are others- e.g, in the same diff I listed about you changed "He is a member of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) " to "He is said to be a member of the", thereby undoing this edit by brewcrewer. There are many more, but I don;t have the time to go over a series of 2 dozen or more edits to detail every one of them, when i have shown you clearly reverted 1RR. As to what you can do - you can revert ALL your edits made today, discuss them on the Tak page, get consensus for them, and re-add those with consensus tomorrow. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC) ]
User's talk page is semi-protected, someone else needs to notify her, as I can't.
Discussion concerning TiamutStatement by TiamutThe 1RR rule is to prevent edit warring and not impede article development. I don't believe I've violated 1RR, but perhaps I don't understand what counts as a revert anymore since the changes made some time ago. No one has indicated any problem with these edits on the talk page. If they had, I would have worked to ddress their concerns. I would self-revert, but I'm not sure what to self-revert. Help please? Tiamuttalk 16:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning TiamutComment by asadWhat exactly is the violation being claimed here? That Tiamut made two reverts of different material? That is not a violation. -asad (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Comment by Shrike@Asad : It doesn't matter if its different material.From WP:3RR "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert."--Shrike (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC) ]
Comment by Al Ameer sonAnother ridiculous thread wasting everyone's time. Tiamut did nothing wrong, she's just improving the article. Concerning the first diff, she just made a correction and concerning the second diff, Brewcrewer and I agreed to remove the line "sometimes utilizing women and children" per WP:Undue. Tiamut just made the edit for us. See Talk:Khader Adnan#WP:Undue for clarification. The article has thus far been stable and no edit warring has taken place. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC) ]
Comment by RolandRThis is becoming ridiculous. These edits look like any regular edit to me, and if they are held to be reverts then the process of editing Wikipedia becomes impossible. I can't see that they "reverse the edits of other editors", and they are certainly not edit-warring. Tiamut is trying to improve a contentious article, and it would take an incredible amount of bad faith to see any of her actions here as sanctionable. Meanwhile, the originating IP, who shows a surprisingly strong awareness of this noticeboard for an apparently new editor, has never been formally notified of ARBPIA. I suggest that an admin formally notify them. RolandR (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Comment by ShukiCurious arguments here in what I see as a parallel AE to my recent one where I was sanctioned. When I was being judged, the defenders here were against my 'what me?' claims and now they are defending Tiamut. Ho-hum...--Shuki (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Comment by The Devil's AdvocateThere are two diffs provided, though the IP seems to imply there are three by listing the same diff twice. Two appear to be clear reverts, with the other apparently based on Brew's own suggestion about the edit he made, but one could be reasonably seen as a BLP violation. Whether these should even be counted as separate reverts at all is questionable. The only intervening edits by an editor other than Tiamut between the two diffs the IP has provided is a single bot edit. I think it violates the spirit of the rule to suggest they should not be counted as a single revert just because of a single routine bot edit.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Comment by BrewcrewerI don't understand this complaint. There are some UNDUE and NPOV issues with Tiamut's edits but there's no 1RR violation or anything else that would merit AE review.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Comment by PriorymanThis IP contributor looks very much like another sock of NoCal100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can we please have a checkuser look at it? It certainly doesn't pass the smell test for me. Prioryman (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Result concerning Tiamut
|
86.153.139.153
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| 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 86.153.139.153
I have tried to engage this IP editor and encourage them to discuss there edit on the talk page without success. Bjmullan (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
User notified here.
Discussion concerning 86.153.139.153Statement by 86.153.139.153Apologies but I was not aware of the 1RR until I had made 2 edits. I actually opened the discussion on the edit, Not Bjmullan as they have stated. Bjmullan did not respond to discussion until after his revert and without a rationale for the change. I am not entirely familiar with the rules of wiki but i am learning quickly. I believe BJmullan has also broken the 1RR rule. Dont be surprised to see the same user revert the page again.
Comments by others about the request concerning 86.153.139.153Result concerning 86.153.139.153
|
Samofi
| User spoken to. NW (Talk) 21:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Samofi
On 07:48, 20 October 2011 Samofi got banned from the topic of Hungarian-Slovak ethnic and national disputes, indefinitely: "Having reviewed your continued conflicts with other editors over Slovak-Hungarian topics, I have become convinced that your role among all the editors that have been contributing to the overall disastrous editing atmosphere in this topic domain has been among the most unconstructive. Under the discretionary sanctions rule of the Some days ago, Samofi inquired about how his topic-ban can be lifted [247] [248] and then began editing within the domain he is topic-banned from, even before it is successfully appealed:
To avoid further wiki-drama, I do not want to comment on whether Samofi should be blocked ,or should not.
Discussion concerning SamofiStatement by SamofiComments by others about the request concerning SamofiResult concerning Samofi
|
Anonimu
| Don't do that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Anonimu
This is a briefer repost of the February 17, 2012 request for enforcement, per the closing admin suggestion. Below is a list illustrating some of the most aggravating edit wars, extreme attitudes and conflicts entertained by Anonimu which violate the civility parole/impeccable behaviour conditions from the previous ban. It is a significantly smaller subset of what was previously reported on February 17, 2012:
Please also note that a significant number of users already made statements in the February 17 report. User has violated each provision of his reinstatement with impunity and repeatedly: 1RR, no edit warring, civility parole. He creates constant conflict and strives in it.
Original notification diff, Repost notification diff
Discussion concerning AnonimuStatement by AnonimuComments by others about the request concerning AnonimuI would have thought that Codrinb would have gotten the last closure, instead they have chosen to come back to AE, yet again, and have filed very much the same grievances from the last report. The diffs as displayed do not stack up to scrutiny, and in most cases are stale. I will again state, that this is obviously a case of editors attempting to throw enough shit in the hope that some of it sticks -- as noted to Anonimu on his talk page, this is an old tactic with new participants, and it should not and must not be allowed to continue to occur on this project. As ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 22:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC) ]
Result concerning Anonimu
|