Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive99

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

Request concerning The Last Angry Man

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Igny (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Last Angry Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:DIGWUREN

I would recommend indefinite topic ban from articles related to Soviet Union or Communism.

Diffs

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

• Rude remarks

1. your a joker with a threat to continue edit war circumventing 1RR.
2. heap of crap
3. trash
4. Just read the whole thing here.

• Edit warring over POV tags

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

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

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

1. Placed on DIGWUREN notice on 12 September by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on 11 September by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
3. Warned on 11 September by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
4. Warned on 8 September by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

I will add more comments here after the

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

See here.

Discussion concerning The Last Angry Man

Statement by The Last Angry Man

Igny`s reverts

• Communist terrorism

[1] Reverts though there was no discussion on the talk page and the tag was removed within policy and does not use the talk page, He is asked by user

• Holodomor

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

• [10][11][12][13][14]

• Occupation of the Baltic states

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

• Douglas Pike

[23] [24] [25]

• Sockpuppetry allegations,again

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

Reply to Mathsci, moved from his section:

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

Comments by others about the request concerning The Last Angry Man

Comment by Vecrumba

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

Comment by Tammsalu

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

I suppose Fut.Perf's remarks demonstrates one the benefits of adminship, being that one is free to make any kind of assumption what so ever. However given that the range of topics TLAM currently edits was actually suggested to him by Biophys here, Fut.Perf's comment about associating TLAM with "the same ecological niche of a previously banned user in the biotope of our POV-pushing universe" seems off the mark. In my experience Brits in general tend to be less pro-Soviet and somewhat intolerant of Russian patriotic nationalism than most. The plain fact of the matter is that ArbCom did lift TLAM's ban on appeal, without knowing the full circumstances of the appeal I'm not sure these kinds of sock-puppetry accusations are germane to Arbitration enforcement. --

talk) 19:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Sigh, is this latest unwarranted personal attack[30] by Igny upon my person relevant to his complaint about TLAM? IMO this exemplifies unremitting battleground behaviour. --
  talk) 19:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Actually, ANY admin is within their power to ban a sockpuppet. This user is under no special Arbcom protection, and so they shouldn't be. I have word from the committee itself that their unbanning was a once-off good faith unbanning. I also have word from the committee that anything further in relation to this user is handled by the community, not the committee, although the Committee would appreciate a heads-up. I will inform the Committee of this discussion, just as I will also inform a couple of other users who like to keep the Committee in-check of this discussion. As I said, I will provide to an admin who is willing to look at the evidence said evidence via email, as I am not going to let this sockpuppet know how he has, yet again, been caught out. In the words of Marknutley and his sockpuppets, let's "try again"[31][32]. Or do we simply allow sockpuppets like this to "take the piss" out of the community?[33][34]

Let's dialogue 08:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

BTW, if anyone is wondering what I am talking about refer to

Let's dialogue 11:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

You don`t think your reaching a little here? Film titles? And why not mention that Nutley was blocked from his computer, at his IP address and his service provider long after I registered and began to edit? The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment by Mathsci

Please note these talk page comments of TLAM from 2 October.[35] Other edits of TLAM have been discussed with FPaS and others on

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

Comment by Biophys

Nominating for deletion [36] an article created by TLAM [37] looks

@Russavia. What?. No, I did not. Sure thing, you can do whatever you want. I do not care.

Biophys (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

With regard to TLAM, I recently talked with him. After having this conversation, I had an impression that he is not Marknutley who was more experienced than him. Most important, TLAM tried to do right thing. But that was "mission impossible". Why? Obviously, there are some editors in this area who revert others on every possible occasion [38] and are constantly involved in contentious disputes. No one can edit difficult articles in this area, as exemplified by the fate of Holodomor and "Mass killings". We are going to have more such articles.

Biophys (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

Comment by Greyhood

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

Result concerning The Last Angry Man

I propose: 6 month topic ban for Igny; 2 month topic ban for TLAM. Reasons are:

• Igny -- as far as I'm concerned, Igny is deeply engaged in the very definition of battleground behaviour that discretionary sanctions are designed to stamp out. For example:

• gratuitous battleground attack in this AE ("after the WP:EEML team rushes here for TLAM's defence and mud slinging")
• attempts to solicit participation in the AE from perceived friendly editors ([41])
• Multiple recent examples of edit and tag-warring. See the page histories of Communist terrorism and Occupation of the Baltic states for behaviour such as on-sight reversions without even edit summaries.

• TLAM -- the so-called rude remarks are mild on the scale. Only the first of the four -- "joker" -- is directed at another editor. However, in light of Arbcom's strong suggestion to stay away from articles about Communism, I don't think that uncivil behaviour like that, with a bit of tag-warring on Communist terrorism thrown in, on a contentious article about communism, can go unsanctioned.

Given that I'm proposing a couple of hefty sanctions, and there is no hurry, I'll await comments from uninvolved admins and as few as possible from the peanut gallery, please. --

Mkativerata (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• • I would go for 3 months for TLAM, as I see no reason to depart from the usual length applied for a first topic ban. I otherwise concur.

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

    • In considering what to do here, I am finding it hard to wrap my brain around the assumption that TLAM might somehow not be a sock of Marknutley. If ever a new account took over precisely the same ecological niche of a previously banned user in the biotope of our POV-pushing universe, it's this account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Russavia, if you have BEANS-style evidence, please let me know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Fut.Perf.: Agree on that last. NW (Talk) 14:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't disagree. But arbcom decided to unblock TLAM...presumably after reviewing all the evidence that was available. In the absence of exceptionally damning new evidence, I don't think it is appropriate for us to block TLAM as a sockpuppet.

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

Good lord you people are useless, an experienced SPI clerk actually said I don't see a direct connection with Marknutley If you wish to know what the committee looked at ask me. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you conveniently ignores the case right below where you were blocked...right. T. Canens (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin I assume then

WP:AGF does not apply? I was responding to your obvious error above. I also stated I would explain the committees decision based on the evidence if you asked. The other SPI block was based on two things, I use chrome as did Ten Ton Tunic, I live in the same county as Nutley. That was it. Now should you like a full explanation post on my talk page and I will happily write it up for you. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Request concerning No More Mr Nice Guy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

ZScarpia   23:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions

Diffs

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

1. 23:39, 26 September 2011 No More Mr Nice Guy made a gratuitous personal attack against user
   WP:ARBPIA#Decorum
   principle that editors avoid "unseemly conduct" such as personal attacks and incivility. The ARBPIA remedies allow any uninvolved administrator to impose discretionary sanctions on any editors working in the ARBIA if, despite being warned, they repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the expected standards of behaviour in Wikipedia.

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

1. Notified on 14:12, 13 April 2009 by PhilKnight (talk · contribs)
2. Notified on 21:41, 26 May 2010 by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

• No More Mr Nice Guy says that his comment wasn't a personal attack. The section of the WP:NPA policy which addresses what a personal attack is says that it includes "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". It goes on to say that "serious accusations require serious evidence". No More Mr Nice Guy told Talknic (talk · contribs): "How about you desist wasting everyone's time with your silly trolling?" It looked to me as though Talknic was engaging on the talk page in a constructive, reasoned and polite way and that No More Mr Nice Guy had no grounds at all to accuse him of "silly trolling" or of "wasting everyone's time".

• No More Mr Nice Guy uses the defence that, "I'm not the first person who described talknic's behavior as trolling." It did look to me as though Talknic was being harassed from several different directions, but I didn't notice any other comments as baseless or as unacceptable as No More Mr Nice Guy's.

• No More Mr Nice Guy quotes the Wikipedia:Talk guideline about editing the comments of others and seems to suggest that I breached it by again striking out his comment after he objected. The guideline - and it is a guideline - does not, though, say "stop if there is any objection", but "normally stop if there is any objection". From my point of view, I was giving No More Mr Nice Guy two chances to avoid being reported for making a personal attack, neither of which he accepted or took other steps to avoid, but merely insisted on reinstating his worthless and abusive comment.

• No More Mr Nice Guy wrote: "ZScaripa removed my comment without discussing the issue with me beforehand (or afterwards) and removed it again after I objected. He came directly to this board in what seems like an attempt to remove someone he perceives as having opposing views to his." As No More Mr Nice Guy's talk page shows, I tried to discuss one of his talk page comments with him once before. That proved to be something of a waste of my time. That being the case and there being nothing in the guidelines obliging me to enter into a discussion before striking out the personal attack, why would I? No More Mr Nice Guy could equally be asked why he didn't open a discussion with me instead of simply reverting me twice. I didn't come straight to this board, as I could have done and perhaps would have done if had been true that I was merely trying to remove someone who has views opposing my own, but gave him several chances to accept the removal, or modification, of his remark. The second time, I warned him that, if the comment was reinstated, I would take it to one of the noticeboards. He reinstated his comment and told me to "go ahead". I've been editing on Wikipedia for almost six years. In that time I've made reports on the AE and AI on two occasions, this being the second (and the first time against No More Mr Nice Guy). If I was in the game of trying to get rid of editors whose views conflicted with mine, there being quite a few I should think, I'd have been a lot busier than that. In fact, what does motivate me in cases such as this is that, if I see a remark being made to another editor which looks way beyond the bounds of acceptability, I feel duty-bound to do something about it.

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

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

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

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

Ok. Thanks again.     ←   ZScarpia   00:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for future reference, I want to include a link to the section of of WP:NPA dealing with removal of text:

WP:RPA.     ←   ZScarpia   13:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[42]

Discussion concerning No More Mr Nice Guy

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

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

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

In summary, there was no personal attack, ZScaripa removed my comment without discussing the issue with me beforehand (or afterwards) and removed it again after I objected. He came directly to this board in what seems like an attempt to remove someone he perceives as having opposing views to his. I believe

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

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

This appears to be another one of those chronic cases of wikilawyering that admins have warned in the past will result in sanctions. An editor's entire talk page contributions appear to be a combination of

Agreed, this is not even close to warranting administrator action. Barely even a

NPA. I'd suggest solving this between the three of yourselves. Toa Nidhiki05 14:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Decorum is not a remedy. Please link to the actual remedy you wish for an administrator to enforce.--Tznkai (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as far as I can tell, you all are wrong.

• Calling someone a troll is an attack on their personal character. Thus is a personal attack. Describing someone as trolling is close enough that it really isn't a useful difference. Compare: "you're an idiot" and "stop your idiocy." It is all disrespectful Any further analysis of this issue would be silly.
• That having been said, refactoring someone else's comments, especially directed against you, is also problematic. It does little more than inflame opinion, especially when you've been asked to stop. So don't do it.
• The point of
  WP:CIV
  and most of the conduct policies on Wikipedia is to prevent bickering and promote respect in order to preserve a healthy editing environment. Which is to say, both of you, please try to treat each other better and go write something.

Request for discretionary sanctions  Declined.--Tznkai (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ZScarpia, I misunderstood and misexplained what happened on the reversion. Let me explain it better. Don't refactor comments, as a general rule. I don't think its within policy, but even if it is, its really bad idea, because it makes the situation worse, not better.--Tznkai (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I basically concur with what Tznkai has said above. While the remark in question was sub-optimal, refactoring it simply made the situation worse, and edit-warring over a strike out on a talk page is, again, never helpful. So it's
  WP:TROUTs all around, I'd say. There is no need for any sanctions, or other administrative action and this request can, IMO, be closed. Eluchil404 (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Request concerning Toddy1

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

talk) 14:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Toddy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned

• Toddy1 is to be placed under formal notice and warned of possible discretionary sanctions

Diffs

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

1. 21:55, 3 October 2011

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

• To Yulia: Regardless of what you believe Toddy1's intentions to be, the wording of the DIGWUREN decision is crystal clear with regards to accusations of Holocaust denial and the like. Note that I am not proposing that he receive any block or ban. Such an action would not be appropriate, as he has not yet received an official warning. My proposal is that he be officially placed on notice so that he will know not to resort to such tactics in the future, lest he be sanctioned. As for the cool-down period, I think that is probably a good idea, though it is up to Toddy himself to take such a break. ~~
  talk) 23:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• To Tznkai: As Toddy1 has not received an official warning per DIGWUREN yet, I feel that is all that can be done (How odd! An editor requesting something less than a block on AE?). I stated above that I was unsure as to whether this was the correct way of doing so, but that I felt that it was the least tattletale-ish way.
  I linked to the "Editors warned" section as I felt that it addressed the issue here more directly than the generalised "Discretionary sanctions" section. Plus, one can always look a little bit down the page to see them :) ~~
  talk) 00:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Done

Discussion concerning Toddy1

Statement by Toddy1

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

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

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

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

The message I posted that is being complained about

You must remember that many Ukrainian nationalists who live in Canada and USA have parents or grand parents who served in the Great Patriotic War on the German side. Some of them were like

14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Ukrainian). Please do not offend them when they make anti-semitic remarks - they all club together and may get you banned for not being a racist like they are.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Toddy1

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

All editors who talk about "racist bullocks" and Auswitzch [44] must receive a warning. Note that edit by Lvivkse (quoted by Yulia) has nothing to do with racism, however disputable it might be.

Biophys (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

2 Toddy1 claims above, in saying that [Ukrainians in North America] "make anti-semitic remarks - they all club together and may get you banned for not being a racist like they are.", claims that "this message does not make generalized accusations about persons of a particular national or ethnic group.", which is obviously entirely false.

3) He is now saying the definition of a nationalist is "People who make xenophobic or racist edits"; would this be crossing another line? Its pretty askew to reality and just adding to the negative stereotypes being bandied about here--Львівське (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Toddy1

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

All you want is a warning per discretionary sanctions remedy? (wrong link by the way)--Tznkai (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This diff by Toddy1 does seem to be an example of ethnic stereotyping about Ukrainians, and it ought to be sufficient to issue a warning of the discretionary sanctions: "You must remember that many Ukrainian nationalists who live in Canada and USA have parents or grand parents who served in the Great Patriotic War on the German side. Some of them were like
  14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Ukrainian). Please do not offend them when they make anti-semitic remarks - they all club together and may get you banned for not being a racist like they are." It is unclear how large a group he is including in this blanket statement, but the whole thing is improper. His response above to the AE complaint seems like an attempt to justify the truth of this remark by limiting its scope, but in my opinion there is no way to fix it. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Ed Johnston is clearly correct that such statements are the kind of ethnic stereotype identified in the case and fully justify a warning and notification of potential sanctions. A quick look through Toddy1's contributions doesn't show a pressing need for anything else at this time. Eluchil404 (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Warning given.--Tznkai (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Hearfourmewesique

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy 19:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Hearfourmewesique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction

Diffs

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

1. 14:28, 11 October 2011 same as this past revert
2. 19:07, 11 October 2011 labelled a revert

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

1. Blocked on October 3rd for edit warring at
   Palestinian people
   (the exact same article and almost the same exact edits)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

BRD?!?!?!? If you want editors to follow BRD then when you are reverted you do not re-revert. This is a straightforward 1RR breach. I dont think I need to respond to the rest of the comments below, but if somebody feels there is any worth in them at all I will be happy to respond. nableezy - 19:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me??? "I dont think I need to respond to the rest of the comments below, but if somebody feels there is any worth in them at all[...]" – is this

WP:CIVIL in any way? And in any case, there is a difference between an edit and a reversal. What exactly did I revert in my first edit today? Please do not provide an edit that's 10 diffs far behind, be honest here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Respond in your own section please. The first edit was almost exactly the same as the reverts that you were blocked over. Both reverts removed Israeli-occupied prior to West Bank and also removed or close to 500,000 if including approximately 200,000 Jewish Israeli citizens in Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem. The edits need not be exactly the same for them to be reverts. A revert is any edit that undoes another editors edit, in whole or in part. By reverting portions of the same material in the first edit you made a revert. You then made a second revert. You can, from now until the request is closed, self revert your last edit. You still have not. nableezy - 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Hearfourmewesique

Statement by Hearfourmewesique

This is a tactical war waged on a 1RR arbitration-enforced page. I made this edit to remove contentious information and stated in the edit summary that I am opening a discussion on a talk page, pleading editors not to revert me. This was my first edit, therefore it is not a reversal. I got reverted by

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Hearfourmewesique

• As I wrote on your Talk page, calling your second revert "my one revert for the day" doesn't make it so. Your first edit of the day reverted (with minor changes) to your favored version of the lede from before your block. I would also remind you that 1RR is not an entitlement. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...nor is it an excuse to shove your rivals aside. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I think an administrator should give Hearfourmewesique notice of the ARBPIA sanctions regardless of the outcome of this report. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I first encountered Hearfourmewesique at Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict#Confusing poll in the "Present status". I suggest admins review that discussion because it provides an insight into the editor's approach to the topic area. The editor is clearly agenda driven and will damage content and reduce policy compliance if they are allowed to continue editing in the topic area using their current partisan approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes Sean, my "agenda" is to remove agenda-driven information that's either irrelevant or plain untrue (which I effectively demonstrated on that same discussion you linked, by proving that sources are constantly being distorted here, and when I showed you that your own sources are actually working against your agenda, I heard no further replies from you). This noticeboard is filled with complaints from Nableezy, all against editors who are trying to make Wikipedia a bit less of a propaganda site when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, yet are portrayed as agenda driven themselves. I asked the editors, politely, not to reinsert the material in question until proper consensus is reached (stemming from a discussion I started on the article talk page); the first thing Nableezy did was revert me, then replied with "nonsense" and "your comments merit no response". This is a stupid war, and I refuse to be a part of it. If any admin here will examine Nableezy's behavior, they will easily see the WP:Civil POV pushing by him and the others, as well as reporting every editor who disagrees with him, which reaffirms the POV pushing point I am raising. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Your intentions may be good but I don't think you are able to edit neutrally in the topic area or make objective assessments of neutrality. I walked away from that discussion. I almost never do that. The reason I walked away is because it's obvious to me that you can't see how your own views are compromising your approach to editing. Normally I don't care but in this case we are dealing with empirical data. I think I made my agenda quite clear. I tried to suggest a way forward that I think would result in a balanced NPOV compliant section based on a variety of sources but you only seem to be interested in content that conforms to your model of things, your truth, rather than simply reflecting reliable sources. That's fine. It's up to you but I won't work with editors like that nor do I think they should be allowed to edit in the topic area or they should at least be made aware of their own shortcomings and encouraged to improve. It's nothing personal but if you feel compelled to massage empirical data generated by a respected organization, present it and sample it in ways that are inconsistent with a representative set of sources so that it fits in with your worldview, I'm not interested. Messing with data is way over the line in my world. It's a question of scientific ethics. Having said that, I'm sure you have made many fine edits outside the topic area so this is only about a very specific and small subset of the thousands of edits you have made. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Either prove your claims or withdraw the personal attack. I actually showed you how I removed distortion of facts and inserted the correct representation of sources; you, on the other hand, endorse statements that are vaguely or not at all supported by the actual sources, but are a hand-picked misrepresented quotation that is taken out of context. Again, pot calling the kettle and all that. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I don't think you understand or care about evidence and proof there is really no reason why I would waste my time trying to prove something to you using evidence. I said what I have to say at the talk page and here. I know you can read. If you can't understand it, fine, it doesn't matter to me. You have demonstrated that you are incapable of editing in the topic area without damaging it as far as I'm concerned. You have shown a willingness to contaminate poll data with your editorializing, you are apparently unaware of the PLO's recognition of Israel's right to exist (as fascinating as your tabloid reprint of an WorldNetDaily article is) and judging by your "Geography, anyone???" edit summary at
  Palestinian people you believe that East Jerusalem and the West Bank are nowhere near eachother. You may believe that your edits and your approach are improving the topic area but in fact it's obvious that they are not. Now, I'm sure you will dismiss everything I've said for reasons that won't make any sense to me but such is life. If you continue this way you will be back here at AE very soon. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It's very clear to me that this is victimisation of Hearfourmewesique. It's also clear to me that it would be a waste of effort for me to say any more, as the conclusion is forgone. So I suppose this is moral support for Hearfourmewesique (whatever that name means ) - some of us who aren't involved can see what's going on and though we can't help you, know that you are in the right. Egg Centric 22:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you... although you are the minority here, I do appreciate the support and can only hope there will be others that see what you see (and everyone should too, but this is not utopia). As for my name... read it out loud. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Egg - this is clearly viticmisation. Regardless of the result, Hearfourmewesique is in the right here. Toa Nidhiki05 19:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, how? nableezy - 19:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Hearfourmewesique

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

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

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

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

Appealing user

STSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – STSC (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from Senkaku Islands, logged at

Administrator imposing the sanction

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[45]

Statement by STSC

The administrator failed to satisfy the "Warning" provision of the

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

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

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

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

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

Statement by arbitrator John Vandenberg

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

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by STSC

Result of the appeal by STSC

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

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

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

Request concerning Ludwigs2

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Hipocrite (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions

Diffs

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

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

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

Gross violation of NPA

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

Edit warring

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

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

Problematic conduct after this filing

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

Log of required notifications

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[52]

Additional comment by filing party

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

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

Discussion concerning Ludwigs2

Statement by Ludwigs2

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

for the required notifications section, Hypocrite lists:

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

This is not a promising beginning to an enforcement request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

response to Hypocrite

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

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

response to KillerChihuahua

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

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

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

response to B.C

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

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

Compromise resolution

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

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

• That I be allowed to refer to skeptical editors as a cultural group in a non-judgemental way (the same way comments might be delicately voiced about editors of particular religious or ethnic groups). This is important on the pages I frequent because skepticism represents a distinct demographic with its own particular worldview that should be balanced against other worldviews.
• That I be given the opportunity to refactor individual comments that slip through (this to handle the fact that I may not realize a particular comment will be considered poisoning the well when I write it). A note on my talk page with a diff should be sufficient to get me to reword things; I certainly won't argue with it.

obviously, any abuses of these caveats could be brought up for discussion here; that won't happen, but I realize the need for spelling out the detail.

This, I think, should satisfy all the valid concerns on this page. Would it be acceptable? --Ludwigs2 20:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Ludwigs2

• Over the last two weeks, a group of new editors including Hipocrite have taken over the Astrology page and made sweeping unilateral edits to purge what their leading editor, Dominus Vobisdu describes as “fraudulent bullshit”. They have removed well cited material with scant reference to the Talk page and without consensus in order to push a fundamentalist sceptical POV. Any alternative edits have been quashed by force of numbers rather than force of reason. This request is an attempt to censor one of the few editors, Ludwigs2 who is engaging in civil debate on the talk page and contributing towards an impartial point of view. Robert Currey talk 22:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the above in general. I'm not a frequent editor on the Astrology page but Robertcurrey sums up recent developments well. During the past week I have found that a number of editors (including Hipocrite who has initiated this request) have made drastic changes to the page without discussion and against previous consensus. There are those such as Robertcurrey that represent the astrology side of the argument but it seems they are presently outnumbered by a group of editors pushing the pseudoscience agenda, trying to discredit astrology every chance they get (little do they know that, without thousands of years of astrology cultivated by top minds throughout history, there wouldn't be any science to talk about today). A refreshing new face is Ludwigs2, who in my mind represents a very sober middle ground. He/she seems well educated, balanced and writes succinctly. It is a shame that an action such as this one can be initiated by editors who are red-handed in their own POV pushing, blatantly edit-warring, ignoring the Talk page, removing well-sourced and balanced material, etc, etc. If anything, Hipocrite and his/her group should be questioned on their uninformed and destructive actions (both on the Astrology page itself and various political maneuvering on the side). SLP (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ludwigs, you could avoid all this by just saying you'll be civil and more collaborative. Why don't you just do it? You were going to come back and act like an admin. B^e——C_ritical 17:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Collect

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

Agree with this. B^e——C_ritical 01:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by mostly uninvolved A Quest For Knowledge

I am mostly uninvolved in this dispute. IIRC, I have never edited this article. I only made one small suggestion on the article talk page[59] and my change was implemented by another editor.[60] Ludwigs2 made a comment to me that was a tad bit too aggressive and I started a discussion on his talk page. I would like to continue that discussion with him.
Hipocrite posted some diffs and it's obvious that Ludwigs2 needs to tone down the language a bit, but there is also much wisdom in what he says. Sceptical editors on

Comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

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

The article also is subject to ongoing external canvassing, including this plea on

Agree with this and with Collect and AQFK. I was expecting to work with Dominis and with Ludwigs, hope we can refocus the discussion towards content and away from behaviour. One of the SPAs has systematically reverted every edit I have made. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on response from Ludwigs2 The overall impression I get from the response is "it's OK for me to fling gratuitous insults at whoever I like, even while this enforcement request is open,[61] because I'm smarter than all of you and I'm right." That his response accuses others of a "battleground attitude" shows a mind-blowing lack of self awareness, and does not bode well for any possibility of moderating his behavior. No one is asking that he "kiss science troll ass" as he puts it, just that he refrain from being so willfully obnoxious.
  talk) 15:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

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

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

Comment by Olive

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

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

Comment by Count Iblis

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

Moved

Regarding Ludwigs' lengthy response[62] to this: So basically, boiled down and paraphrased:You're always neutral, they're a cabal, your (Ludwig's) attitude is their fault, and if I(KC) really care about Wikipedia, I'll change the entire dynamic of the site so they don't incite you. No, I disagree. I also do not see any serious attempt to be self-critical or improve. Leaning towards making the topic ban 6 months, not 1. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: It does not matter if Sandstein's block was immediately and soundly rejected by every admin who ever was, and was overturned in .05 nanoseconds; its still you finding out (being, as it were, "notified") about the ArbCom case. Cease this fruitless line of misdirection. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As this seems to have provoked some misunderstanding, at least from one editor: This is due to a continued battleground mentality, blaming others and IDHT rather than any sign the editor in question recognizes his shortcomings and is interested in improving. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Ludwigs2

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

• I'd like to hear from Ludwigs2 first before taking any action on this complaint. T. Canens (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a day and a half since this was filed (more?) and Ludwigs has essentially only edited Astrology-related pages since then. I suggest that admins go ahead and take whatever actions they deem necessary; if Ludwigs doesn't feel the need to comment, that's his business. NW (Talk) 04:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest a month long break from all Astrology articles, to give Ludwigs time to think this over and hopefully come back with a more productive attitude, especially regarding his tendency to poison the well regarding his fellow editors. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  changing to 6 month topic ban, due to IDHT and continued battleground behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be nice if another uninvolved Admin would comment, pro or con. thoughts? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Within discretion, at the bare minimum. Since action has been taken, I am going to close this. Ludwigs2 can appeal in the standard fashion if he wishes. NW (Talk) 12:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]