Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive125
Nmate
[edit]| No action taken. Iadrian yu (talk · contribs) is warned that frivolous AE requests will result in sanctions for the filer. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Nmate[edit]
This user is an example of WP:ABF, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OR. Since this user has been warned a couple of times, blocked several times [1]; [2] - blocked for edit warring, placed under DIGWUREN notice and under the List of editors placed under editing restriction [3] his behavior is not changing, it is even worse. He is violating at-least 4 out of 5 principles of DIGWUREN case [4]. According to his edits, his contributions are 90% related to conflicts with people who disagree with him, in most of the showing battleground mentality and bad faith with almost obligatory accusations of whoever complains against him for block shopping or harassment. Links:
There are many more examples, but I enumerated only the latest. Note that whatever contact with this user wth persons who doesn`t agree with him is resulted in an immediate accusations of block shopping or harassment [27] and [28] while allowing him to continue with his behavior.
User:Timotheus Canens - You are right, indeed I used a lot of this phrasing (just noticed myself :) ) but I don`t know with what other words to describe some of the actions I presented here. If this is not appropriate I could change it. Adrian (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC) User:Future Perfect at Sunrise - I am surprised that you don`t see anything wrong with the diffs I provided but if you fell that I made a mistake, that`s fine too. I am aware that Arbitration process can rule against me too. I thought that this pattern in the behavior of this user is more than obvious in violating the principles of the DIGWUREN case. Adrian (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC) User:Tijfo098 - In my opinion you are partially right. The main reason is his conduct while adding unsourced data. Several times just a simple contact with this user results in various accusations and personal attacks which leads to conflicts. Adrian (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I would like to know so I would not repeat the same mistake in the future. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Response to User:Nmate. I will try to respond to some of the points you made, on points I do not respond I believe the diffs I provided before provides sufficient information and no further explanations are needed. Also I am not sure that I must be implicated personally to file this report if there is evidence for claims I presented here.
According to the diffs I provided your behavior presents an serious problem on wikipedia, and I presented only your latest actions. You are well informed of DIGWUREN case yet your behavior is the same as when you were warned or placed under editing notice. I am not sure if I need to inform other users of this, but if requested I will. I will avoid to answer your accusations(with which I don`t see a connection to this report) because anyone who disagrees with you meets with one or more accusations. I hope I answered your questions. Adrian (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Response to the section specially dedicated to me[edit]Response to the section specially dedicated to me and not to the this case. Again you accuse me of various things without any solid evidence, you even accused this user of NPA just for informing you of WP:OR! Even so, I will try to answer them to avoid the confusion you inserted. Diffs from more than a year ago I don`t want to comment, by that I could enumerate your actions from before.
Note that Iadrian yu is block-shopping again based on frivilous reasons of which I will notify the Arbitration Comitee. Restoring a comment made by a site-banned user is not allowed. Second, I haven't encountered Iadrian yu on Wikipaedia for a while and still he is block shopping. It is disgusting. and Has this anything to do with you? Note that Iadrian yu does not interest to edit the article; his only aim is block shopping. Second, I do not have to wait until it is confirmed by checkuser if said user admitted that he is a sockpuppet: which part of it do you not understand? - where again you did`t waited for the sock to be confirmed (as you stated it yourself) and started accusing me again just because I was there. I am starting to think that there is no encounter in the last year where you did`t responded to my diffs with some sort of accusation against me just because I presented some data and not addressed the evidence I provided. Adrian (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Additional diffs about Nmate[edit]I will add more diffs that demonstrates User:Nmate`s behavior problems.
If more diffs are needed I could provide them in given time. Adrian (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Notification [38] Adrian (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Nmate[edit]Statement by Nmate[edit]I do not understand what Iadrian yu wants to achieve here. 14 diffs are brought up here most of them do not concern Iadrian yu. So what does he deal with my alleged "bad faith" then? It is senseless.
To Iadrian yu
More on Iadrian yu[edit]Iadrian yu pretends that there was some serious offense. It’s obvious he stores some kind of file on me, watches all my edits, even ones which don’t concern him in the least bit, looking for some “dirt”. This is explicit evidence of ‘’’long term, sustained, stalking’’’. Additonally, he accuses me of battleground mentality, and bad faith acting towards 3 users: User:IRWolfie-, User:Lone boatman ,and User:Cindamuse without his making any attempt to notify either of them about the fact that he lodged a request for arbitration for me in which they are involved. So why? It is because of the fact that he has never interacted with these users, and I also just coincidentally encountered them in Wikipedia. Therefore, it is unlikely that they would like to participate in his block shopping campaign here.
I think that Iadrian yu has been on a permanent campaign to eliminate an editor who he disagrees with. At this point, this should be disruptive enough to require some block. Response to Iadrian yu regarding: response to the section specially dedicated to me[edit]Interesting enough that it is Iadrian yu who has reported me at WP AE, and yet he dares to tell that I accuse him of various things without any solid evidence.
My reply is: it was a block-shopping on you part, everyone can see it with a half brain. Then the sockpuppet was blocked[43], no adim action was taken against me.
My reply is: Had I violated the 3RR rule , I would have blocked for it. No-one, but User:Bzg1920 was blocked there. Normally, the edit warring board has nothing to do with DIGWUREN. However, you began retairating DIGWURREN there in the hope of that it may result in me being blocked even more seriously than as usuall happens in the edit warring board. I resent "the disruptive behavior". You are the one being disruptive. There is nothing to further comment on this line.--Nmate (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Nmate[edit]I don't know who's pushing the most POV here, but "Lots of pieces of info is written in the article in bad English in addition" was funny. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC) User:Future Perfect at Sunrise - I am also surprised that you don`t see anything wrong with the diffs. In my opinion Future Perfect at Sunrise is not neutral admin. He acts in favour of Nmate. He used "boomerang" phrase in my case, in case of user Samofi and again in case of Adrian. On the other hand he always acted quickly in Nmate benefit or in favour of other editors from his POV/country. For example this case: At 22 November 2011 he promised he will look on my "oponnents": [44] But nothing happened. On the other hand after canvass of Nmate he had time to block Samofi [45] . This was reason for him for topic ban: [46] and this for a block: [47] But for example this statement (The modern Slovakia is a neo-fascist state where the hungarian minority is just a thing what they have to assimilate into the slovak society. [48] ) was unnoticed. It looks like a admin abuse. In my opinion user Nmate wants to block all users with different opinions.--Omen1229 (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning Nmate[edit]
|
Africangenesis
[edit]| Africangenesis is indefinitely banned from the topic of Climate Change. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Africangenesis[edit]
A number of editors have been actively disruptive in the area related to climate change. A worrying large number of personal attacks, insinuations and incivility have been directed against WMC. All this has resulted from an AfD which I opened on a non-notable climate scientist. There was a very large amount of canvassing: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ShowTimeAgain/Archive and several new editors started editing as a result of the canvassing, or became others became active after a large period of inactivity. Africangenesis turned up at the AfD and is a problematic editor: Amongst other things, he has been edit warring to insert Leroux into List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global_warming: The editor only stopped to avoid WP:3RR technicality (he actually made 4 reverts), clearly gaming the system, mentioning in the last revert that "You hit 3RR before I do." The response to a warning makes for interesting reading: [55] also.
There is a lot of evidence but I am aware that ARE admins like succinct filings so I have mostly limited myself to the most recent major incident. If interested for more, read the associated ANI comments, WilyD page comments etc by following the diffs
Discussion concerning Africangenesis[edit]Statement by Africangenesis[edit]Turkey trots to water What was User:Dominus Vobisdu doing instantly reverting an edit on a page, he had never edited before, and had never participated before on that talk page, or on the discussion or vote for the deletion of the Marcel Leroux page, or on any of the discussions still ongoing on other pages regarding the deletion. Repeat: What was User:Dominus Vobisdu doing instantly reverting an edit on a page, he had never edited before, and had never participated before on that talk page, or on the discussion or vote for the deletion of the Marcel Leroux page, or on any of the discussions still ongoing on other pages regarding the deletion. The world wonders.
I understand that this user may have a sterling record, which of course, makes me wonder even more. I will put a link to this on Vovisdu's page, since he has been mentioned, in passing. --Africangenesis (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Unclean hands defense vis'a'vis IRWolfie-[edit]IRWolfie has pursued the deletion of professor Marcel Leroux despite the fact that he was obviously notable by WP:Academic criterion #5 due to being the head of the climate laboratory by criterion 1 due to his large number of citations. Since then his number of citations has been shown to be in the top 1% of his related fields. I wasn't involved from the beginning of the article and history isn't available, but he had been knighted by France for his service, meeting criterion 2, if that was known at the time of the deletion request that would be another sign of bad faith. Additionally there was the question of impact outside his profession because of his academic work, criterion 7. His skeptical writings on global warming were cited by the skeptical communities within France and around the world, but his articles in credible sources like newspapers were by him and not about him. Since then I have found several French newspaper articles which discuss his opinions in way which may meet criterion 7. <new paragraph> Despite the original notability criteria, and the documentation since, IRWolfie- has been pursuing deletion and WP:BATTLE warring on the sandbox version of the Marcel Leroux article and on the supporting File pages, even though, the page is still in deletion review. Conclusion: unclean hands --Africangenesis (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC) The shear notability of Marcel Leroux is evidence of IRWolfie-'s unclean hands. Here is how notable Leroux is:
Deceptive presentation of the evidence above as further evidence of unclean hands Just prior to the 3RR violation discussion IRWolfie- posted FIVE links of "evidence". Which makes it appear as if the 3RR violation is open and shut. The first link is most egregious because it is more that TWO DAYS EARLIER I discuss the alleged 3RR violation next.--Africangenesis (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC) I did NOT violate 3RR[edit]Note, the first of the 5 links presented by IRWolfie- Was TWO FULL DAYS prior to the other four links, presenting 5 links prior to the 3RR discussion makes it too easy for a bad faith voter to just assume there was an egregious violation. Note, also that link number 3 can be argued to be SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT from the link number 2 which is the first of the quick sequence to be considered in a 3RR analysis. The wikilink in number two is:
while in number three it is:
In the context of this article, where great significance is placed upon the link as showing notability, one that appears as hypertext to a flyby editor, and one that appears as a normal wikilink to another article is a substantial difference. It is clear that I am presenting a normal article in a normal manner. Dominus Vobisdu reverted each edit with these corresponding edit summaries:
On my second revert, I admonish him against bad faith editing:
It is only on his third revert where he raises an informative issue in the edit summary, never on the talk page:
After that is when I revert for the third time, and stop, and do not revert WMC's, revert. --Africangenesis (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Response to Dominus Vobisdu[edit]Dominus explains his sudden appearance at the article:
If he was as familiar with the goings on at the page and the hostile atmosphere as he claims, then he should also have known that I was a 1RR editor, and that there has never been a shortage of users willing to revert. He calls my edit summary deceptive while admitting that it was also true. Why did he feel compelled to revert and then to edit war after that? If he was as familiar with the deletion and deletion review as he claims then why did he delete a technically complying blue link, for a professor / scientist that is clearly notable by 4 criteria when only one is required. Was he being a wikilawyer, instead of representing the true intent of wikipedia? Did he agree that Marcel Leroux was notable and as an informed person going to vote to restore the article, so he just wanted the restored entry in the page to await what he considers a "real" blue link? That is a technicality. My edits were in the spirit of wikipedia. He should have known that his reverts were totally unnecessary, and that local community is perfectly willing to revert notable scientists, in a timely matter that that their reverts had been "respected" by 1RR behavior. --Africangenesis (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC) This Dominus comment is totally unfair: "As far as I was concerned, that was the end to the matter." because as far as I was concerned, it was the end of the matter too. You failed to note that it was not the end of the matter for others, who seized upon it as an opportunity. My descriptions of your behavior have been confirmed by your own admissions and by my independent research. They were not a personal attack on you, and as you noted, they were not directed at you. Frankly, you defense of your behavior doesn't hold water. --Africangenesis (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Response to WilyD[edit]
Correction: WilyD you are mistaken, the warning was two years ago.--Africangenesis (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Clarification I see that Tony Sidaway is still an editor in good standing.--Africangenesis (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Response to D'sousa[edit]Note that the reference to crew was not to current editors, but to the past, I'm entitled to my recollection. Having been a witness to collaboration on the back channel chat forum. However, I did apologize to WMC for suggesting that he had been involved in calling scientists deniers. Since then I recall something going on with regard to the Category hierarchy. Climate skepticism was being put under Category:Denialism. Shortly after that Jimmy Wales had to get involved in cleaning up some biographies. I should note that WMC was engaging in WP:BATTLE behavior as well, with his participation in the unjustified Marcel Leroux deletion, and going even further to suggest to WilyD that "salting" of the ongoing efforts on it should be considered. I don't know what "salting" is but it sounds bad. It seems that if multple people who are not a crew engage in WP:BATTLE behavior with one editor, it is that editor that is at risk.--Africangenesis (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Response to User:EdJohnston[edit]Many editors disaffected by the culture still contribute, while you may consider me a climate change warrier, that is a biased view imposed by the requirement to be logged in to edit those semi-protected articles. Here is a partial record of other anonymous contributions. My broadband provider changes the IP address occasionally, here are some anonymous contributions. [66][67]. These contributions and others from past IPs and by other disaffected editors are despite the cognitive disssonance imposed by contributing to the credibility of an organization which tolerates the WP:OWN collective behavior on the climate articles. You mention battleground behavior, but can you honestly say that a relentless attempt to delete a notable scientist, the sandbox of his article, the file documenting his award, etc. and attack all attempts to defend him while refusing to concede any of the points established by better than usual evidence, while technically avoiding "violations" is editing in good faith and not battleground behavior? Look a little deeper please. regards, --Africangenesis (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC) In addition to the anonymous edit contributions I claim above, my use of my login has not been strictly climate related, those edits dominate because you have to war to get changes in those articles, even as the community eventually agrees it is often only grudging. Many of my climate contributions still exist on those pages, hard won agreement, but wikipedia is better for it. Here is a list of my other article editing that I bothered to login for:
Chaos theory Che Guevara Conscription in Germany Counterpoint Denialism Enumerative induction Ericsson cycle Evolution Fallacy False dilemma File talk:John Quiggin enumerative induction.png Fluid ounce Health effects of tea Intelligent design Kaempferol Low-energy vehicle MDMA Melatonin Near-Earth object New Zealand Novel Ozone depletion Plug-in hybrid Postmodernity Russell Humphreys Sodium benzoate Solar variation Specified complexity Tea --Africangenesis (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Response to User:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights[edit]"any reason"? Would you care to defend that hyperbolic battleground language? Are you one of those who can read all the discussion of Marcel Leroux and still say with a straight face that you don't see "any reason" he is notable? If so you are aspiring to IRWolfie's heights of intellectual honesty. Do you really think the admin culture at wikipedia will be impressed with your rhetoric. Are you capable of giving a fair hearing? If you really can't think of a reason, you shouldn't be trusted with admin privileges should you?--Africangenesis (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Response to User:Stephan_Schulz[edit]A snarky mention of WP:TRUTH? No encyclopedia should aspire to be post-modern. --Africangenesis (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Comment by User:Dominus Vobisdu[edit]There are two problems here to be addressed: making a deceptive edit summaries, and a long, long history of gross incivility that resulted in an ArbCom warning I've been lurking on the page in question, as I generally edit in peudoscience related areas, but rarely edit or participate in discussions because of the shockingly hostile atmosphere there. However, there is a certain consensus among the various parties there that any scientists added to the list have their own WP articles (no red links). I noticed that Africangenesis had readded a section on a scientist, Marcel Leroux, whose article had recently failed AfD, and was going through DRV. In his edit summary, he said that he was readding the material on this scientist as a "blue link", which I found odd. When I checked his addition, I was surprised to see that the link in question was indeed blue, as he said. Clicking on it, though, I discovered that he had linked not to the (deleted) article on English WP, but to the article on French wikipedia. I reverted, of course, and he reverted back. This went on until I hit 3r, at which point he accused me of "not editing in good faith" and taunted "You hit 3RR before I do". His fourth revert was quickly overturned by another editor. As far as I was concerned, that was the end to the matter. But not for Africangenesis. He proceded to make accusations of vandalism and bad faith against me, not directly to me, but to several other editors and administrators. I was called a "flyby" [[68]], a "a vandal or someone recruited from a chat room comes in who isn't acting in good faith " that "shouldn't be allowed to get away with playing games" [[69]], a "vandal" who "should have to explain what he was doing there, did he hear about it on the chat room or what" [[70]], a "deletionist" [[71]], and an "interloper" who "loves to delete" [[72]], who he wonders has been a net contributer to wikipedia [[73]]. This continues with his statement in this case above, where he questions my right to edit the page at all. This not the the first time Africangenesis has violated WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY. He has been warned abundantly, even by arbcom itself [[74]]. In fact, one of the threads on which he bad-mouthed me was a thread started to warn him about multiple civility violations [[75]]. Since being warned a year ago by Arbcom, Africangenesis has persited in uncivil and battleground behavior, and shows no willingness or ability to change. I recommend a (long-overdue) indefinite block. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Comment by User:dave souza[edit]
While I agree that Africangenesis' actions have been disruptive, his point about Marcel Leroux being improperly deleted is valid. I disagree with the academic notability standards, but Leroux clearly passes them in several ways. Africangenesis' response to the deletion has been extreme, but I can understand his frustration when faced with an unjust situation. To focus solely on his behavior and ignore the apparent POV pushing tactics being used would only increase the injustice. Gigs (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Africangenesis[edit]
@Gigs, Why Leroux doesn't meet PROF has already been discussed countless times. Also see the DRV where the decision is being endorsed. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Why is Africangenesis inserting in a new results section? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Result concerning Africangenesis[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mooretwin
[edit]| Mooretwin (talk · contribs) may now edit on the topic of British baronetcies. His ban from WP:TROUBLES remains in place. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Statement by Mooretwin[edit]I have abided by the topic ban for nearly eight months, and I would like it to be lifted. I have demonstrated restraint in this period and I have learned my lesson about making frivolous and retaliatory complaints against other editors. I acted in the "heat of the moment" and shall not do so again. Prior to the incident in question, I had successfully managed to avoid confrontation, edit wars, etc., for a period of two years.
Statement by T. Canens[edit]As I was acting on a consensus of uninvolved admins in enacting the topic ban, I don't think it's appropriate for me to unilaterally lift it. After a very quick look, I have a question for Mooretwin: Do you think this edit violate your topic ban from "... British baronets"? T. Canens (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Mooretwin[edit]I am not involved in this but if this user has changed as he proved he is I am always for giving a second chance. Also he waited for 8 months while he could ask for this 2 months earlier. Adrian (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by Mooretwin[edit]
Mooretwin, can you please link to examples of you working well on Wikipedia in the last six months, especially in highly collaborative ways? Furthermore, please notify T. Canens of this discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
At this point I think there is consensus to remove the Baronetcies from the ban, narrow the ban to the Troubles directly, and revisit in three months.--Tznkai (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Factocop
[edit]| IP blocked 3 months. T. Canens (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Factocop[edit]
This all relates to WP:TROUBLES, specifically the discretionary sanctions under which user:Factocop was topic banned for 3 months on 25 September [85]. Also, ARBCOM attached 2 conditions to his unblocking on 6 September notification at user talk:Factocop (I haven't found on-wiki discussion leading to the unblock but will provide a link if I subsequently do).
It is alleged that 46.7.113.111 (talk) is Factocop (talk · contribs). If this is correct then
For background and the raising of allegations, reading the discussions at Talk:Derry#Requested move:Derry to Londonderry. Talk:Derry#Requested move permalink is probably the easiest. The requested moves and this user's comments on them are tendentious and time-wasting.
My understanding is that prior warnings are not required for the unblock conditions.
This all hinges on whether 46.7.113.111 (talk) is or is not Factocop (talk · contribs). At the help desk it was suggested I make a report here in the first instance rather than requesting a separate SPI.[90]. Factocop has been proven as a sockpuppeteer in the past, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Factocop/Archive. The allegations are based on behavioural evidence (partly enunciated at Talk:Derry#Requested move e.g. [91] (before discussion was moved). CodSaveTheQueen (talk · contribs), a proven sockpuppet of Factocop, was disruptive on a previous proposal to rename the Derry article to Londonderry, see the collapsed section at Talk:Derry#Possible moratorium. I will place a link to this request at Talk:Derry to alert editors there. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Factocop[edit]Statement by Factocop[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning Factocop[edit]Just to say I am not Factocop, and this seems to be an attempt to derail a discussion. I have checked and Factocop is listed as RETIRED. I also checked an archived report [94]. Suggestions are that this user operates from London. I think the WHOIS function will perhaps show that I am not from London. I doubt Factocop would of moved to my location to avoid a wikipedia blocking but fair play to the lad if he has.46.7.113.111 (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the IPs geolocating to the UK, it should be borne in mind that 109.154.199.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was from Northern Ireland. Travel between the two parts of the island is easier than between the two parts of the UK. Other than the novelty of the UPC address being in a different jurisdiction, the topic area, style, diction and interaction with others shouts duck. RashersTierney (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning Factocop[edit]
Closing, IP hardblocked 3 months. T. Canens (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC) |
Neotarf
[edit]| Request withdrawn. NW (Talk) 06:02, 18 October 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.
The enforcement that is specified in "Enforcement by block" is a brief block. In my estimation the warning of a block for repeating, such as this edit[95] should be sufficient.
The talk page of a guideline is not the place to make accusations. It is ironic to accuse someone of being disruptive by being disruptive.
Neotarf appears to be a relatively new editor who may have quickly adopted the attitude of incivility at WP:MOS. My recommendation is a warning but nothing more severe. There very first edit, however[96] indicates some previous experience with WP.
Discussion concerning Neotarf[edit]Statement by Neotarf[edit]Apteva's theory[edit]Apteva has a pet theory about dashes that is combined in some way with a theory about capitalization, based on something remembered from a primary school grammar class, and has been pushing this theory at multiple forums. This thread is perhaps representative. Many editors on many forums have spent a lot of time and effort patiently explaining MOS and how the current consensus about style was reached, but Aptiva continues to insist that these are "spelling errors". Attempts to discuss this on Apteva's talk page have been met with statements like "I see no reason for discussing things that are totally obviously wrong. I only opened an RM for moving Mexican-American War because I knew that it had previously been discussed ad nauseum and produced an absurd choice" and "I feel like Clint Eastwood "go ahead ... make my day". An attempt at WT:MOS to get more community input into whether there is approval for this type of behavior was simply deleted by Apteva. Apteva has a history of simply getting rid of other editors' legitimate comments by hatting them, by changing the archiving bot so they archive quickly, by refactoring discussions in the middle of a thread so the comments of editors whose ideas Apteva doesn't like are in an entirely different section, (diffs are available for all of these) or by simply deleting them, as here and here. This goes way beyond what is permitted by WP:TPO. Most recently Apteva has started "canvassing" -- posting the rejected theory on the talk pages of editors who voted against these repeated proposals. [97] [98] Accusations[edit]I'm not sure exactly what Apteva's issue is about my edits, or what this has to do with Arbitration Enforcement . If there was some disagreement, it should have been taken to the talk page, not here. The so-called "prior warnings" are completely bogus. The idea that I am subject to some "editing restriction" is also ridiculous. Apteva seems to be accusing me of socking: "There [sic] very first edit, however indicates some previous experience with WP." I would encourage whatever procedures there are for checking this to be performed, so that my name can be cleared, with the stipulation that they also be performed on Apteva and IP 146.90.43.8, and that Apteva declare any IP used at MOS and ANI. Apteva's stated preference for editing under IPs has been openly acknowledged at the alternate account, however Apteva's user page only started acknowledging this account three weeks ago. [99] --Neotarf (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Neotarf[edit]I don't understand what behavior Apteva is accusing Neotarf of. Yes, Neotarf tends to defend the MOS against changes; and yes Neotarf seems to have been familiar with WP before making this account. Where's the problem in that? As for the other IP editor that Apteva mentions, that seems likely to be another one of his socks, but it's hard to know for sure. Apteva is well known for using multilple accounts, for being contentious, and for editing mostly as an IP (as he says on one of his talk pages); see also sockpuppet case and checkuser case. Dicklyon (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning Neotarf[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Hearfourmewesique
[edit]| Appeal declined for lack of response. T. Canens (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
Statement by Hearfourmewesique[edit]It has been almost 10 months since the topic ban, and it was not violated once. I have also embraced a much more cool headed approach to this topic as a whole. Please give me a chance to prove that I can be a valuable editor.
@Tznkai - :I will look for it a little later, have to go soon. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Statement by NuclearWarfare[edit]I'm fine with whatever other admins want to decide, though I personally would recommend against it. NW (Talk) 18:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Hearfourmewesique[edit]Was he topic banned? I never noticed [103] [104] [105]. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by Hearfourmewesique[edit]
Hearfourmewesique, can you please link to examples of you working well on Wikipedia in the last six months, especially in highly collaborative ways?--Tznkai (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Dicklyon
[edit]| Request withdrawn by Apteva per [106]. EdJohnston (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The remedy that I am recommending is "Enforcement by block" a brief block. The talk page of a guideline is not the place to make accusations. It is ironic to accuse someone of being disruptive by being disruptive.
User:Dicklyon is no stranger to WP:Point. In this edit[111] it is asserted that "in proper names" doesn't mean "in all proper names". Well duh. Hyphens are not used in Sun or in Moon, but guess what, no one has been able to find a proper name that uses an endash, which is what they were trying to say, even though it is not true. The idea was that adding some would stop one editor, me, from saying that the MOS says that proper names use hyphens. Well I can still say that the MOS says that proper names use hyphens because the word some means that Sun and Moon do not use a hyphen - and is totally ridiculous to think that adding some means that endashes are either ever or never used. What it implies, if you were to think that it was referring only to the times that hyphens and endashes were used, that hyphens were used some of the time but endashes were used most of the time which even if all of the comets in the world used an endash in the name and all of the airports and wars used an endash, that would still mean that endash was rarely used, as the cases where Dicklyon thinks that endashes are used in proper names are far fewer than the cases where hyphens are used, so it is just poor grammar to use some to mean most. But rewriting the MOS just to try to stop one editor from wanting to correct the punctuation of a title is just absurd. In the discussion of moving two articles, Dicklyon pointed out three uses of that name, and failed to point out that oh yes the vast majority do not follow that usage. On their talk page today[112] they asserted that if some reliable sources use something that is sufficient to use that for an article title, when that is definitely not how choices are made. We use the majority, and the most authoritative. In the link, "numerous sources" is 17% - and a reference to the official naming of comets says they only use spaces and hyphens, yet Dicklyon, who has an engineering background IRL, insists that they should use an endash.[113] That in itself is a good example of disrupting WP to try to make a point. In one of the edit summaries Dicklyon wrote "for Apteva to use this excuse to hide discussion about his disruption is not OK", as if I was deleting a discussion from ANI. User appears to be under the misconception that guideline talk pages are notification of disruption pages, and wanted to make certain that all of the other editors working on that page knew that an editor was being warned about disruption. Who is such a notice for? For the disrupter or for everyone else? Had the notice been placed where it should have been, on my talk page, deleting it is acceptable and a confirmation that it has been seen, if not actually read. Putting it on the talk page of the guideline was totally inappropriate and it should have been deleted by anyone who had seen it.
Discussion concerning Dicklyon[edit]Statement by Dicklyon[edit]Apteva is correct that I accused him of disruption on WT:MOS. I stand by that. While he claimed in defense that "I am pretty sure that Noetica and others have posted many more times than I", here, the contributors evidence clearly supports my contention that he was dominating WT:MOS since introducing his idiosyncratic theory about en dashes and proper names on Sept. 24. It has been a rather disruptive campaign, not just there but at multiple RM discussions and other places. He needs to back off a bit, especially as it is clear that he has found zero support for his theory. His evidence of so-called prior warnings to me is absurd. Apparently I am being accused of ignoring advice to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the MOS. Yes, I confess, I have personalized the current mess as being something brought on by Apteva, and I seek advice on alternative approaches, since weeks of addressing his specific issue has only caused him to ramp up the disruption. Dicklyon (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Dicklyon[edit]
Result concerning Dicklyon[edit]
|
Zeromus1 & The Devil's Advocate
[edit]| Zeromus1 (talk · contribs), The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs), and Cla68 (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from commenting on, or interacting with, Mathsci (talk · contribs), broadly construed, anywhere on Wikipedia. T. Canens (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||||||||
Comment TDA has claimed that TrevelyanL85A2's arbcom sanctions and his AE block are due to me rather than the conduct of TrevelyanL85A2 himself. [127][128] Statements like that, which have now degenerated to rants, are in direct contradiction to decisions first of arbitrators and then of administrators at AE. Since TDA has been continuing to make statements of this kind for close on three months, even after warnings, why should he be surprised in any way at all that there should now be consequences? Mathsci (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Further comment Here is some additional off-wiki chronology which might place The Devil's Advocate's "popping up" in a more realistic context than the one he has suggested. Sept 28, nocturnal pains later diagnosed as heart attack. Sept 29, 30 repetition of the same. Oct 1 advised by nurse friend to go immediately to A&E ward of UCL. Oct 2 admitted and not permitted to leave hospital because of severe heart condition and high blood pressure. Oct 4 echocardiagram. Oct 5 angiogram at Heart Hospital. Oct 8 triple bypass operation. Oct 13 discharged to convalesce. Oct 15 receive hate mail through wikipedia mailing system, apparently from DeviantArt group or other disgruntled editors, threatening to make my real life a misery. Mathsci (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Additional comment The Devil's Advocate has resumed his disruptive interpretation of my editing that formed a large part of his output in July and August, when the motions were under discussion.[129] More disturbingly Zeromus1 and The Devils' Advocate have today made it clear that they intend to continue editing effectively as proxies of TrevelyanL85A2 in pressing for an RfC/U. Here is Zeromus1's latest suggestion, before he's even made 200 edits to wikipedia.[130]: "At what point do you think an RFC/U will be appropriate?" And here is The Devil's Advocate's response:[131] "Personally, I think it is appropriate to wait at least until the AE case is resolved." That seems to be yet another quite unambiguous statement of their joint intent to continue the disruptive campaign of the editors site-banned under WP:ARBR&I. In July and August when the motions were formulated, The Devil's Advocate pushed his own disruptive counterproposals in an evasive but ultimately unsuccessful way. It's no different here: on the basis of his past conduct, very little credibility can be attached to The Devil's Advocate's assurances that his statements about RfC/U's are merely a matter of politeness and show no intent. The latest posting of Zeromus1[132] indicates that he wants to use the RfC/U as sort of private star chamber to right various injustices. He writes, "In addition to the current issue involving you and Cla68, I think an RFC/U about Mathsci also should cover some of the editors he pursued before I came on the scene, such as Ludwigs2, Miradre and SightWatcher." It must have dawned on Zeromus1 that the kind of disruptive vigilantism he is proposing will only get him banned from wikipedia. The Devil's Advocate's reponse was evasive [133], presumably because he knows that going down that highly disruptive path can only lead to a site-ban. The Devil's Advocate nevertheless is still saying that I have to be "dealt with" in some way: he has tied himself to TrevelyanL85A2's disruption-only campaign. There lies his error. He appears to have committed himself to the revenge campaign of Captain Occam. If Zeromus1 is now mentioning Ludwigs2, a site-banned edtor and one of Captain Occam's heros, that places more questionmarks next to Zeromus1's prior editing history on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Comment on Zeromus1 I agree with Professor marginalia that Zeromus1 seems to be connected in some way with the DeviantArt group. that's because of all the things he's mentioning which no newbie would know about. I'm not going to discuss the problems with his editing, beyond saying that he is not currently adhering to wikipedia editing policy but appears to trying push a minority viewpoint by ignoring the principles laid out in the original 2010 case. But his whole attitude and the comments that he has been making in project space seem indistinguishable from the common traits of SightWatcher, Woodsrock, TrevelyanL85A2, Ferahgo-the-Assassin and Captain Occam described in the review. In his latest diff, he uses almost the same phraseology as TrevelyanL85A2 and SightWatcher to describe some terrible fate that might befall him.[134] Zeromus1 cannot say what it is, but seems not to realize that The Devil's Advocate has made his own choices about how he edits in article and project space. He writes, "I'm just looking for any way to stop the same thing from happening to me that's now happening to you." So far half a dozen users have pointed out that his account looks like a sockpuppet account. With his first edit to User talk:Yfever and later edits tracking my edits on WikiProject Cities, that is hardly surprising. But then he writes, in a manner indistinguishable from SightWatcher and TrvelyanL85A2, "Can you think of any way it would be possible to stop this besides an RFC/U? I initially considered raising the issue at WP:WQA, but that appears to no longer exist, and Mathsci also has already told me not to post in his user talk. But maybe there are some other dispute resolution options that I don't know about." In other words, is there any other way to continue the campaign of harassing Mathsci with fake processes to "write him out of the equation". I don't know whether Zeromus1 is a sockpuppet of TrevelyanL85A2 or another member of the DeviantArt group, but he is certainly giving every appearance of that. Zeromus1's 200 edits coupled with his urge, inexplicable as a newbie, to use any possible process against me (WQA, RfC/U), places a huge questionmark against the nature of Zeromus1's account. He is in cahoots with The Devil's Advocate, which does not improve matters for either of them. Mathsci (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Discussion concerning Zeromus1 & The Devil's Advocate[edit]Statement by Zeromus1[edit]I haven't restored any edits by Echigo Mole, and in the fourth diff linked to by Mathsci, I said that I'm not going to. I haven't violated the restriction, and I don't intend to violate it. One thing I find strange is that a few minutes before he made this report, Mathsci edited the restriction in question to change what it links to. His edit is here. He seems to have edited the arbitration ruling just to make it easier to accuse us of violating it. I am troubled by the lengths Mathsci goes to to pursue editors who have opposed him on R&I articles, even after they have disengaged from the topic, because he's given a lot of indications I'll soon be subject to this myself. I don't see what his heart condition has to do with that. If Mathsci is concerned about the effects of Wikipedia on his health, I think an important question is whether this report and his other recent activity really is what's best for him. If he's concerned about that, why doesn't he spend a few weeks away from Wikipedia while he recovers? He could go for a walk in the countryside, read a book, watch a movie, or all three. And if he can do those things without thinking about Wikipedia, I promise it'll make him feel a lot better than what he's currently doing. This page seems relevant. I'm sure that if I did something terrible while he's taking a break, someone else would report it, and someone else also would eventually block Echigo Mole's sockpuppets. I don't know what to make of his insistence that he needs to do all these things himself, except that maybe he cares too much about Wikipedia to do what seems like it would be best for him. Zeromus1 (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]The restriction Mathsci is citing only applies to restoring reverted edits by banned editors connected to this topic area. I have restored no such edits, nor has Zeromus as far I as I know. Mathsci is completely misrepresenting the nature of that restriction. His characterization of my actions is likewise so obscenely distorted that it would take a voluminous amount of material to point out of every single error. Suffice to say, the cited diffs clearly do not say what he suggests they say and in a response on my own talk page I said I do not want to pursue an RfC/U at this time. This request is completely frivolous.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
@T.Canens An interaction ban would just create pointless drama and sanction me without good cause. I think you should just close this with a warning to Mathsci about hounding. Anything else would just give this complaint far more credibility than it deserves.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Mathsci, that is not even close to a reasonable interpretation of my comments. I said that you have been going after me for objecting to your conduct towards Trev. During that AE case that got Trev blocked, one admin at AE called out your conduct as inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Mathsci, I am not sure what you want me to say, but I am certainly not trying to hurt you in any way. You chose to accuse me of tag-teaming and meat-puppetry while recovering from major surgery. I didn't force you to do that. All I did was ask you to leave me alone, but you aren't doing that and just forcing me to defend myself, which I don't even really like doing. Please just let this go, because it isn't doing anyone any good.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Future, this is just a typical pattern of Mathsci doing something he has every reason to believe will provoke an editor, over-reacting to the predictable response to said provocation, and then pursuing that editor until an admin decides said editor should be sanctioned. You should not continue indulging this disruptive cycle. This AE case itself is just a part of that cycle and should also not be indulged. I think giving him a very stern and clear warning about hounding would suffice in this case. Just look at the past week of article contributions from me, Mathsci, and Cla68. While Cla and myself have made numerous substantive contributions to multiple articles, Mathsci has been almost completely consumed by this effort to go after other editors. Mathsci makes valuable contributions to the project, but when he sets his mind to going after other editors those contributions essentially disappear.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Statement by Cla68[edit]
Sorry guys, I'm hatting off this whole sub-thread, including both of the repeated mutual calls for sanctions. Please just stop this now, both. I'll repeat: whether or not it's wise to do so, Mathsci has the right to remove whatever Echigo Mole edits he finds, if and when he pleases, from whatever page, period. You may think it might not be a wise thing for him to do so, but reacting to such a removal with protests and accusations and calls for sanctions against Mathsci is highly inappropriate. As such, Cla68's initial involvement in this thread is thoroughly regrettable, although I don't think it alone would be grounds for sanctions against him. But such sanctions might be called for if Cla68 keeps on harping on this theme. The problem now is that as long as M. is actively pressing for sanctions against C. because of the way C. has been talking about him, C. will continue to have a reason for defending himself and, by doing so, keep talking about M. Thus, this enforcement thread just serves to perpetuate the offensive situation, which is not good for anybody. Therefore, people, please just let it go now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I've made a bold edit to hat this conversation. Probably beyond process but I suggest WP:IAR applies, nevertheless I'm happy for it to be undone. User:Cla68 as an uninvolved editor it appears you have a bee in your bonnet about Mathsci, from what I can see he has taken the suggestion to drop the stick. I suggest you do the same before you exhaust the patience of the people trying to avoid the issue of the appropriate sanction. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Zeromus1 & The Devil's Advocate[edit]
Result concerning Zeromus1 & The Devil's Advocate[edit]
|
Cla68
[edit]| No action taken, since Arbcom is considering a related matter. EdJohnston (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Cla68[edit]
Cla68's conduct was already highly disruptive during the recently closed AE request (Zeromus1 & The Devil's Advocate). He inserted himself for no very good reason, except perhaps that he had some old score to settle with me. He decided from the outset not to distinguish between a long term community banned wikihounder (Echigo mole) and a user in good standing but very poor health (me). Echigo mole's trolling/disruption had been the subject of a recently passed motion by the arbitration committee. Cla68's behaviour was unethical because he chose to harass me during a period of recuperation from major open heart surgery. His conduct resulted in a one-way interaction ban. If he objected to that ban, he was aware that the standard path is a formal appeal here. He made no such appeal. Instead, in an inexplicable act of escalation and arrogance, Cla68 requested an arbom case centred on me (Race and intelligence II). He has claimed on User talk:Timotheus Canens that he has no previous interactions with me, but that is false, as the toolserver interaction tool shows. [152] His history with me goes back quite a long way. In view of the recent arbcom review and even more recent motion, where inordinate amounts of arbcom's time were wasted, it is absolutely clear that no arbcom case will result. Besides Cla68's grudges fall entirely outside that case and seem to be a personal problem. Given his recent interaction ban, this needless escalation, lack of proportion and attempted disruption warrant a block of at least one month, possibly longer. Cla68 has had fair warning. His poor conduct already resulted in sanctions under WP:ARBCC. This seems to be a recurrence of the same problematic conduct, but now directed at a random person whom he happens to dislike (me). @ Sir Fozzie: TrevelyanL85A2 broke his topic ban flagrantly on arbcom pages multiple times in July and August and no arbitrator lifted a finger. When the motion was passed and he continued his disruption on user talk pages, he was blocked within 24 hours after being reported here. So the arbitration committee does not automatically take charge of violations of bans. As other have pointed out Cla68's case request was not a request ti review his ban but a full blown case, WP:CANVASSING bemused parties, to further some grudge Cla68 has concerning me, probably totally unrelated to Echigo mole, Mikemikev, Race and and intelligence, site-banned users, proxy editing or anything else. The real title of the case should presumably be "Mathsci". Or have I missed something? In any event I will not be available for any kind of case with Cla68 or any other wikifans for at least six months. I still have difficulty walking any distance; I have complicated documents to prepare related to my illness; I also have complex arrangements to make in returning to France in a way that will not endanger my sternum. Its hard to justify sanctioning me as a response to the actions of a community banned wikihounder. That would be feeding the troll. Nobody knows how to control him or where he'll pop up next. To me there is no call for a case, the RfArb should be turned down and Cla68 instructed to make an appeal here. This particular request for enforcement can be closed down without prejudice, to allow that to happen. Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)::Cla68 demand for a mutual interaction ban is just more of the disruptive nonsense we've had in the previous. There he shouted that the wikihounding by Echigo mole, several thousand edits, is my fault, I am to blame, it is not wikihounding. Instead of looking at the cumulative editing of Echigo mole and his army of socks, Cla68 decided to write that it was not wikihounding nbut instead a BATTLE between me and Echgo. Perhapsin Cla68's world Echigo mole should not have been community banned. He does not have multiple socks. he has not lied to unblocking administrators, etc, ect.
Discussion concerning Cla68[edit]We give a lot of leeway to folks to appeal to the Committee AE actions, as I've said there, it has a high bar to lead to reversing, but one-way interaction bans are pretty much inherently unbalanced, as this tends to leave one party free to snipe at the other incessantly, but then call administrators in when the person replies... which is not really a great way to resolve disputes. Would recommend to uninvolved administrators that this request be closed without action. SirFozzie (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Statement by Cla68[edit]I think it might be helpful if you all would go ahead and make the interaction ban involving me, Mathsci, The Devil's Advocate, and Zeromus1 mutual instead of one-way while the case request is under consideration. Cla68 (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Cla68[edit]
Result concerning Cla68[edit]
|