Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:20, 9 November 2012 editSecond Quantization (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers24,876 edits →Request concerning Iantresman: collapse for clarity← Previous edit Revision as of 22:28, 9 November 2012 edit undoMathsci (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers66,107 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 270: Line 270:


===Result concerning Iantresman=== ===Result concerning Iantresman===
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

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

===Request concerning SilkTork===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ] (]) 22:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|SilkTork}}
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ],
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->
#, restores scored-through edit by banned user {{Checkuser|1=Echigo mole}}, having spent days attempting to rehabilitate/enable the original account {{userlink|A.K.Nole}}

; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :
<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. -->
#Advised or warned by Cireland, Future Perfect at Sunrise and Newyorkbrad

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
SilkTork, an arbitrator, has decided that A.K.Nole is a wronged individual and has sought to enable recent trolling by ipsocks. Apart from allowing his talk page to be used by two editors sanctioned here at AE (Cla68 and The Devil's Advocate) in a way that contravenes their sanctions, SilkTork has suggested a highly unlikely scenario which suggests that the socking of A.K.Nole/Echigo mole is a myth and various accounts that checkusers have shown to be related are, according to his viewpoint, not related. He has cast doubt on the blocks of {{userlink|Julian Birdbath}}, {{userlink|Zarboublian}}, {{userlink|Taciki Wym}} and {{userlink|Holding Ray}} on the grounds that the blocking CU/arbitrator, Shell Kinney, is no longer active on wikipedia and therefore any statements that she has made no longer have any validity and are subject to doubt. He has ignored the comments from 2009 of arbitrators and administrators (Charles Matthews, YellowMonkey, CBM, David Eppstein) that A.K.Nole was trolling on ] and its talk page and elsewhere (almost half his content edits). He has ignored further comments about A.K.Nole's editing by Cireland. He has ignored the fact that at least five sleeping sockpuppet accounts, now indef blocked, were created prior to the account A.K.Nole on 2 May 2009:

*{{checkuser|1=Caderousse}}
*{{checkuser|1=Laura Timmins}}
*{{checkuser|1=Reginald Fortune}}
*{{checkuser|1=Tryphaena}}
*{{checkuser|1=Taciki Wym}}

Instead he has taken edits by blatant ipsocks of Echigo mole, from a known ISP, as if they were good faith edits. He has also used edits in 2009 to a deleted article to make undue claims about A.K.Nole's editing history and to cast aspersions about my own content edits. His attitude has been aggressive and bullying with thinly veiled threats. On his talk page he has collapsed carefully reasoned comments about Holding Ray and other sockpuppet accounts of A.K.Nole/Echigo mole. His ] attitude is particularly surprising given his status as an arbitrator. On his talk page he has favoured sanctioned editors and has enabled ipsocks of the community-banned troll Echigo mole several times. Although this is an unimportant side issue, SilkTork appears to have shown a clear bias against me, without any reasonable justification. He has edited his talk page in a manner designed to bully me, while ignoring all the comments I have made, all of which seem reasonable. In summary he has suggested that the wikihounding by Echigo mole is a fiction. He has acted in bad faith by enabling blatant ipsocks on his own talk page for such a prolonged period. The unsocring of scored through edits by a blatant ipsock is a violation of the motion cited above. The edits were later removed by Future Perfect at Sunrise.
; Notification of the against whom enforcement is requested :

<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning SilkTork===

====Statement by SilkTork====

====Comments by others about the request concerning SilkTork====

===Result concerning SilkTork===
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> <!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

Revision as of 22:28, 9 November 2012

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Shortcuts

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

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

    Standard of review
    On community review

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

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

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

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
    Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Important notes:

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

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

    A couple of reminders:

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

    Closing a thread:

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

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

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346

    Rich Farmbrough

    Does not appear to be a violation of the arbitration decision. However, user blocked at ANI for violating a community sanction. T. Canens (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Request concerning Rich Farmbrough

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Fram (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough#Rich Farmbrough prohibited from using automation
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 4 November Rich Farmbrough created over 500 identical pages on one day (only category talk page creation shown, but this run also included templates and some lists), reaching over 10 page creations a minute. The remedy clarifies that "any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so.", so it doesn't really matter if they are automated or not, just that they reasonably appear to be automated.
    2. 4 November This is an example of an incorrect tag application in this run, adding a bug to the wrong project because it is part of the wrong category.
    3. 29 October It is also debatable whether this plant belongs to the butterfly project, it is a butterfly food plant which results in it appearing in the butterfly category tree. (29 October was the relatively slow start of these creations, which was considerably speeded up on 4 November)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    The edits not only appear to be a violation of the ArbCom restriction, they are also typical of the kind of edits that done through a bot or with some discussion could have been better, e.g. all templates should have been added to the Category:Template-Class Lepidoptera articles instead of Category:NA-Class Lepidoptera articles.

    The edits are furthermore an undeniable violation of Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Misplaced Pages community, which while not under AE enforcement indicates that Rich farmbrough should have refrained from making these mass page creations anyway; "Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented. "

    @Rich Farmbrough: How come you always make the same typo, adding an 'S'? Both with categories and with templates. And how do you reconcile these hundreds of creations with your editing restriction on mass creating pages in any namespace? Fram (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
    Note that, as requested below, I have raised the question of the violations of the community imposed editing restriction at WP:AN instead, resulting in a two week block. Fram (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Rich Farmbrough

    Statement by Rich Farmbrough

    While it is touching that Fram continues to follow my every move after all these years, these are manifestly not automated. Automation would have made it a much more productive and accurate job. See these edits

    typos (there are a few more)
    error fixed
    non-standard banners

    Move that this be summarily dismissed to save everyone time and effort. Rich Farmbrough, 14:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC).

    Comments by others about the request concerning Rich Farmbrough

    (assuming that with "this", you mean this enforcement request:) From my point of view, countless hours have been used checking his (and his bots edits), and correcting runs with many errors. This run has a lower error rate than the ones that lead to the editing restrictions and the arbcom restriction, but it is a return to behaviour. Better to stop it now than to wait for the problems to get worse again. Nothing stops him from e.g. requesting a bot to make these edits if he feels that they need to be done. It is not as if these edits are so necessary that they can't wait or that many readers or editors will note the difference (this is of course true of many edits, but it raises the question of why someone with editing restrictions feels the need to ignore these restrictions for this set of edits). Fram (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Re T. Canens: I agree they look like tabbed editing. Such edits violate Rich's edit restriction, but perhaps not his arbitration restriction. However, an uninvolved admin is needed to enforce either of these restrictions. So even if there is no AE block, the creation of 500 pages in one day still warrants a block based solely on the edit restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

    In a few cases, 12 edits are timed as being within one minute (at 18:17 on 4 Nov) and another 8 at 18:16. The restriction is on edits which would reasonably appear to be automated, and they rather seem to breach that standard. Collect (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

    If you know nothing about automated editing - in which case anything could appear to be automated. Rich Farmbrough, 16:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
    As an aside - my first use of an "automated editing" tool was a bit before 1986. So I assert that I do know "something" abut the topic. Collect (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with T. Canens that the pattern of editing does not appear to be automated. As Rich Farmbrough points out, there are errors in the edits that suggest it is not automation, further the cadence of the edits suggests to me they are being done manually. As such there is nothing further to be done here. If someone wants to request a block for violating non-arbitration restrictions, the place to do it would be AN/I. Monty845 17:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

    Result concerning Rich Farmbrough

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

    DIREKTOR

    WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED. Filer blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:55, 7 November 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 DIREKTOR

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Nemambrata (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:ARBMAC#Final_decision
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 5/11/12 „You are clearly not here to have a constructive, objective discussion. To be perfectly frank, experience teaches that trying to reason with nationalist POV-pushing is a futile endeavor“
    2. 6/11/12 „I may be outnumbered here by Slovene Wikipedians, but I have no intention of giving up until unsourced POV is rectified“
    3. 5/11/12 „DancingPhilosopher, I am allergic to nationalist POV-pushing. Please do not start something here.“
    4. 5/11/12 „Its painfully obvious you're here as a POV crusader. Your additions to the lede do not have consensus. Further nationalist POV-pushing and revert-warring will be brought up on the appropriate noticeboard (please take heed of WP:ARBMAC). Please insert the list into the main body of the article, it is not for the lede. Nor is it acceptable for you to add unwarranted emphasis on your country's losses, while removing mention of other nationalities altogether. Your personal perceptions of "importance" and "relevance" concern noone but yourself.“
    5. 29/10/12 „There is nothing more to discuss here, there is only never-ending nationalist bickering.“
    6. 29/10/12 „This just looks like nationalist POV-pushing to me. Silvio just really really likes the name Gondola, and isn't content with it being displayed as a prominent alternative name in the lead (Gondola). Most likely no amount of sources and argumentation will be sufficient to shift his position, and this will probably end in annoyed admins handing-out sanctions.“
    7. 30/10/12 „I'm sorry to say it will probably be very difficult for us to cooperate in future, Silvio. Your extremely aggressive nationalist edit-warring and POV-pushing on this article, where you have repeatedly entered controversial changes without talkpage consensus and against opposition is highly inappropriate behavior. Had this been a less-obscure article, I estimate you would already have been blocked“
    8. 28/10/12 „This is the English-language Misplaced Pages, please refrain from abusive italianizing of Croatian noble families“
    9. 2/5/10 „User:Theirrulez, regardless of whether you are a sock or not, you need to understand what it is you are doing. This is not itWiki. Here we look at English language, not Italian language usage or some source you happen to choose, and Gundulić is the English name for this family. That's one thing. The second thing you must understand is that what you suggesting is highly offensive nationalist/irredentist POV which had already gotten a large number of users banned from enWiki. The same users you are likely now in contact with, I might add, judging from some of your posts.“ „The third point I must make is that, even if you are not an actual WP:SOCK, you are currently acting as a WP:MEATPUPPET for a clique of banned users. That is an actual real breach of Wiki policy, not an honest good-faith mistake.“
    10. 6/10/12 „I'm reasonably certain most users, that aren't pushing the Serbian puppet state POV, would agree.“ „This is a very obscure neck of the woods and its easy to manipulate the informal terminology used by some sources to push Serbian nationalist POV. I am constantly concerned about where this article will go under constant nationalist POV-pushing pressure. “
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warned on Date by Name of user who made warning 1 (talk · contribs)
    2. Warned on Date by Name of user who made warning 2. If there is no warning 2, delete this entire line (talk · contribs)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    DIREKTOR have constant personal attacks against other users that do not agree with him and often point to their ethnic background, accuse them for nationalism and socking and threat to report them if they do not accept his position. From this diff list is clear that DIREKTOR who is user from Croatia have disputes with other users from countries around Croatia (Italy, Slovenia, Serbia) and accuse all of them for nationalism and POV push, insult them and threat them. Administrators should stop this behavior. Nemambrata (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    - notification


    Discussion concerning DIREKTOR

    Statement by DIREKTOR

    Um... am I supposed to say something? I have no idea what this is supposed to be about. These are brazenly cherry-picked, out-of-context, perhaps overly-candid discussion responses. Selected, with great care no doubt, out of a huge number of posts from a host of difficult discussions - which I always try my best to resolve without giving other people work to do on noticeboards. DancingPhilosopher or Silvio1973 might appear with statements along the lines of "oh yes block him, block him!", but they're right now trying to push controversial changes which I oppose. I don't know what else to add. I could go point-by-point, I guess.. The first post is imo justified, given the context of DancingPhilosopher's preceding outburst ("Do not try to compare this loss with the Croatian one! Ever! During the WW II Croats were granted an independent state, don't you try to compare this with the Slovenes teared between three occupiers!"), the second point is a joking remark, etc. This is all quite harmless, when you take away the bold and read the context, that is (imo even the context may be unnecessary for some points). -- Director (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

    Please note that User:Nemambrata has selectively WP:CANVASSED users with whom he knows I have, currently or previously, had a disagreement (regardless of whether they have anything to do with this or not).
    To be perfectly honest, I don't think I'm out of line in suggesting WP:BOOMERANG sanctions here. If anything's been shown, its wikistalking and malicious canvassing. This looks like a pretty transparent attempt to simply have another user blocked for opposing Nemambrata and his pals at Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, and frankly I think this noticeboard has seen more than enough of that show. -- Director (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning DIREKTOR

    Statement by Silvio1973

    Direktor is a very skilled user with a good knowledge of the technicalities of Misplaced Pages rules. Also, he is very experienced and knows how much he can push things without getting any consequences. This is absolutely fine, but the issue is that sometime in order to get things his way he deliberately focus the discussions more on form that on matter, getting to results that might be "conform to rules" but in opposition to very reputed secondary sources. In that sense, the recent discussions on House of Gundulic (if someone has the energy to go trough, by the way there is a 3O pending on the article) and Dalmatia are valid examples.

    However, the real issue is another. It is true that sometime Direktor uses strong wording towards users with different opinions. The thing is that such wording is strong, but not that strong to justify in my eyes any enforcement. But I agree that such comportment can be irritating after a while, because it is repetitive. However, I have been trough a few Talk pages involving Direktor and other users and found out that 95% (if not 99%) of the time, the users getting in an Edit-War with him are the ones being blocked in the end. This happens because he knows how much he can push things. Recently my edits have been qualified of "extremely aggressive and nationalist". Well, now I welcome anyone to go trough my edit and see if there is anything of "extremely aggressive and nationalist" (and please mind that usually all my edits are supported by sources). But I also know that if I had escalated the matter I would ended being blocked, because I am the one less knowledgeable of the rules and I would have been the first one "crossing the line". So I preferred to keep a low profile and swallow my pride. The situation would be different if more competent users and administrators were involved in the discussions concerning all topics about the Balkans but I realise that this is impossible, because sometime the articles concern quite obscure matters.

    Comment by Lothar von RIchthofen

    Yup, that's a lot of canvassing. WhiteWriter Antidiskriminator No such user N-HH Silvio1973 Theirrulez DancingPhilosopher Viator slovenicus. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

    Comment by Volunteer Marek

    Nothing here that's objectionable, though DIREKTOR should probably lay off using the term "nationalist" so frequently (nationalists almost ALWAYS call others "nationalists" so, even if the use of the term is justified, it reflects badly on the user (I know, I've done it myself)).

    Other than that, yeah, maybe BOOMERANG it. Volunteer Marek  18:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

    Comment by Peacemaker67

    Some perhaps injudicious remarks, but essentially this is vexatious in my view. User:Nemambrata has very unclean hands when it comes to poor wikibehaviour, including having been:

    • warned by me for edit warring and poor edit summaries on 1 August (the day he became a registered user) here
    • warned by User:MrX for disruptive editing on 4 August
    • reported at WP:ANI by User:DIREKTOR as an WP:SPA on the same day
    • ARBMAC warned by User:Joy on 5 October here
    • reminded of ARBMAC by User:bobrayner here on 22 October in respect of changing "Srebrenica genocide" to "Srebrenica massacre" on two dozen articles without once discussing on a talk page
    • reminded about ARBMAC again by me on 23 October for continuing the same behaviour as User:bobrayner warned him about
    • warned by User:DIREKTOR for disruptive editing on 23 October .

    Now, User:Nemambrata has only made 368 edits as a registered user in that user name (although he has acknowledged elsewhere that he has edited before that). That is an impressive record for only 368 edits. I will advise all of the editors I have listed regarding this report. I consider WP:BOOMERANG is in order. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

    Comment by Joy

    I agree with Peacemaker67 on the basic point that Nemambrata is reporting DIREKTOR with unclean hands. IIRC, the former user has appeared recently in another discussion where he apparently barged in without WP:ARBMAC in mind, so them filing an enforcement request on the same matter is really pushing the envelope. I doubt anyone would shed a tear if Nemambrata was immediately penalized for this.

    Having said that, the regulars here will remember my own unrelated complaint over DIREKTOR being pointlessly combative. Sadly, it's not entirely unrelated. I quickly skimmed the articles covered in this complaint, and soon found this: Yes, DancingPhilosopher is apparently adding peacock-ish non-summary information to the lead section and drops two factoids along the way. (Censuring DancingPhilosopher for doing that would be entirely warranted.) But the most sensible course of action is to move the relevant part of that information out of the lead and into a relevant section, not just revert it completely.

    If I had infinite time in the world, I'd engage in further analysis, but I don't. Granted, the same can apply to DIREKTOR - we can't really expect him to do everything perfectly. So he did something quick and suboptimal - but it was still better than the other person. Trouble is, people will eventually find it hard to believe that a person can find the time to write large amounts of text in edit summaries and on Talk, yet can't find the time to try to be more constructive, in an effort to reduce the amount of vitriol. Especially in these topic areas where we know that vitriol is important to avoid.

    I hope that someone will find the time to examine the matter and do something productive here, but I'm not really optimistic, since there's a huge amount of material to try to make sense of, and most of it is rather subtle.

    --Joy (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

    If I can just quickly explain here: imo pointless listing of Slovene counties promised by the 1915 Treaty of London does not belong in that article: that's what the wikilink's there for. And there had been some active discussion on the talkpage whether the Julian March article itself is warranted in the first place (DancingPhilosopher is quite right on more than a few points). That said, if the user wanted to introduce the list of Slovene counties into the main text, I wouldn't make any objections. That's what I meant. I myself don't want to do it, though: I think its too much detail for that article. -- Director (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    Comment by bobrayner

    I agree with Joy and Peacemaker67. I don't always agree with DIREKTOR but I have seen DIREKTOR working hard to mitigate pov-pushing on Balkan articles, and the complaints above are just quotemining. Nemambrata's activity in the last 4 weeks can be summarised as follows:

    1. About twenty edits to water down our coverage of atrocities committed by Serbs, most importantly getting rid of that pesky word "genoicide". Each of these edits was rightly reverted by other editors.
    2. Blank the warnings received from other editors (warning-then-blanking is all that happens on Nemambrata's talkpage).
    3. Three more pov-pushing edits;
    4. One edit to create this thread and one edit to notify DIREKTOR;
    5. Ten edits canvassing ten editors who have disagreed with DIREKTOR in the past.

    And that's it. None of those edits are a net positive to the encyclopædia; every single one is a net negative, part of a pov-pushing campaign. I won't pretend that DIREKTOR is perfect, but this enforcement request is just retaliation; which is a disappointingly common reward for editors who try to maintain neutrality on Balkan articles. Nemambrata should know how ARBMAC works - they've been warned about it enough times. bobrayner (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

    I would also point out the remarkable coincidence that a new editor has such a large overlap with HuHu22. HuHu22 was blocked by Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) in late July, as a sock of Warhammer76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who had been blocked for harassing DIREKTOR. Nemambrata started editing on 01 August and showed a remarkable level of proficiency for a newbie - and made a series of reverts identical to HuHu22. For instance, 29 minutes after creating their account, Nemambrata edited this template; does this look familiar? I can provide diffs from other articles if required. And now Nemambrata comes back to harass DIREKTOR. bobrayner (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

    Result concerning DIREKTOR

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

    Ellhn2012

    Already blocked by Sandstein
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Request concerning Ellhn2012

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Ellhn2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Edit-warring to post a frivolous, politically-motivated deletion nomination for Macedonian language
      1. 31 Oct, 1 Nov, 9 Nov (Afd tags)
      2. 31 Oct, 1 Nov, 9 Nov (Misfiled rant on old (previously speedy-closed) Afd page)
    2. Aggressive rants and personal attacks on talkpage:
      1. 27 Oct
      2. 30 Oct
      3. 9 Nov
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

    Standard warning: 1 November

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Newish registered account, previously edited as IP 94.70.117.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 194.177.198.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and similar. Identity with previous IPs self-confirmed here:

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Ellhn2012

    Statement by Ellhn2012

    Comments by others about the request concerning Ellhn2012

    Result concerning Ellhn2012

    (Self-closing; editor has been blocked indef by Sandstein. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC))

    Iantresman

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

    Request concerning Iantresman

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    IRWolfie- (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases

    This is covered under Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases.

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

    In this section Talk:Dusty_plasma#Reference_restoration is wikilawyering to have a book about "the plasma universe" be added to an unrelated non-fringe dusty plasmas article. He argues he wishes to add it for it's 6 pages on dusty plasmas in the appendix . He has continued to argue, despite no consensus for it. I am worried that this pushing, so soon after his topic ban removal is indicative that he is going to continue to civilly POV push this fringe science subtlety; adding a burden on other editors to deal with him. He has been wikilawyering on the page.

    more details about the fringe editing

    He is claiming that "Physics of the plasma universe" is not connected to plasma universe or plasma cosmology, and that to argue with him we must provide reliable sources that argue the source is fringe (an arbitrarily high requirement to place, it's hard enough finding sources that address the plasma universe etc from a mainstream perspective, at all). (See for a more detailed exposition of the issue with the book) This is a source he himself used to argue about plasma cosmology on that article, before his topic ban . This source is the one used as a basis for much of the plasma cosmology/universe material on the website of advocates etc, e.g . He's also wikilawyering that he has sources on his sources, so we need sources on his sources etc etc.

    Also note that one of his first reactions was to to go to WP:IRS, and arguing the exact opposite thing: "The book is clearly fringe. How could I show that?" Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Academic_textbook_assessment_as_a_reliable_source. I'm not sure what to make of that.

    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    • Iantresman is well aware of sanctions in this area, because he was under them. He recently had his topic ban from physics articles and fringe science removed by arbcom: .
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Iantresman

    Statement by Iantresman

    Comments by others about the request concerning Iantresman

    Result concerning Iantresman

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

    SilkTork

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

    Request concerning SilkTork

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    SilkTork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence,
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. , restores scored-through edit by banned user Echigo mole (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), having spent days attempting to rehabilitate/enable the original account A.K.Nole
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Advised or warned by Cireland, Future Perfect at Sunrise and Newyorkbrad
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    SilkTork, an arbitrator, has decided that A.K.Nole is a wronged individual and has sought to enable recent trolling by ipsocks. Apart from allowing his talk page to be used by two editors sanctioned here at AE (Cla68 and The Devil's Advocate) in a way that contravenes their sanctions, SilkTork has suggested a highly unlikely scenario which suggests that the socking of A.K.Nole/Echigo mole is a myth and various accounts that checkusers have shown to be related are, according to his viewpoint, not related. He has cast doubt on the blocks of Julian Birdbath, Zarboublian, Taciki Wym and Holding Ray on the grounds that the blocking CU/arbitrator, Shell Kinney, is no longer active on wikipedia and therefore any statements that she has made no longer have any validity and are subject to doubt. He has ignored the comments from 2009 of arbitrators and administrators (Charles Matthews, YellowMonkey, CBM, David Eppstein) that A.K.Nole was trolling on Butcher group and its talk page and elsewhere (almost half his content edits). He has ignored further comments about A.K.Nole's editing by Cireland. He has ignored the fact that at least five sleeping sockpuppet accounts, now indef blocked, were created prior to the account A.K.Nole on 2 May 2009:

    Instead he has taken edits by blatant ipsocks of Echigo mole, from a known ISP, as if they were good faith edits. He has also used edits in 2009 to a deleted article to make undue claims about A.K.Nole's editing history and to cast aspersions about my own content edits. His attitude has been aggressive and bullying with thinly veiled threats. On his talk page he has collapsed carefully reasoned comments about Holding Ray and other sockpuppet accounts of A.K.Nole/Echigo mole. His WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude is particularly surprising given his status as an arbitrator. On his talk page he has favoured sanctioned editors and has enabled ipsocks of the community-banned troll Echigo mole several times. Although this is an unimportant side issue, SilkTork appears to have shown a clear bias against me, without any reasonable justification. He has edited his talk page in a manner designed to bully me, while ignoring all the comments I have made, all of which seem reasonable. In summary he has suggested that the wikihounding by Echigo mole is a fiction. He has acted in bad faith by enabling blatant ipsocks on his own talk page for such a prolonged period. The unsocring of scored through edits by a blatant ipsock is a violation of the motion cited above. The edits were later removed by Future Perfect at Sunrise.

    Notification of the against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning SilkTork

    Statement by SilkTork

    Comments by others about the request concerning SilkTork

    Result concerning SilkTork

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