Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) at 19:06, 7 March 2013 (typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AE
• WP:ARE

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 WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, 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: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect 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 action appeal by POVbrigand

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

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

Appealing user

POVbrigand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – POVbrigand (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions related to cold fusion or fringe sciences, with an appeal contingent on the user publicly revealing their old account(s).

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive117#POVbrigand

Administrator imposing the sanction

The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AThe_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights&diff=542032628&oldid=541979431

Statement by POVbrigand

I would like to get the chance to show the community that a topic ban is no longer needed. My interest has always been to improve WP, make it more valuable for the readers. I do not want to waste my time or anybody else's time.

The appeal contingent that I publicly reveal my old account was discussed here User_talk:Roger_Davies/Archive_26#POVbrigand and as far as I understood no longer required, the account has since been retired.

I would like to add more explanation of why I think lifting my ban would not hurt WP.

I was banned because I started a pointy argument on the fringe noticeboard about the BaBar experiment being fringe. I wasted everybody's time with it. It was a stupid exercise. I apologized for that back then.

I do not want to waste anybody's time anymore.

My edit behaviour since I was topic banned is my normal "wikignome" edit behaviour that I had for many years on different wikiprojects before I started editing cold fusion. I do not want to return to my behaviour of endless arguments on cold fusion. I really had enough of that, but I do want to have the possibility to "legally" make small edits or brief comments on the talk page. I would like to propose a voluntary 1RR on cold fusion.

--POVbrigand (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

From the comments I see that it is highlighted that I make only a few edits since my topic ban and that I had an old account.

My normal edit behaviour has been for many years (with my old account on different wikiproject) that of a wikignome. Only Arbcom will be able to verify that, because they know the account.

This ban was imposed because I wasted time on the FTN. Now for many months I have not wasted anybody's time and I do not want to waste anybody's time in the future. And I have never wasted anybody's time on wikipedia before my foray into cold fusion.

I have made this appeal because I am confident that I can behave normally.

I can perfectly self restrict myself, there is no need for the ban anymore.

Give me a mentor, give me a 1RR, give me a "edit contigent per month" of cold fusion.

There are several edits I made to Cold fusion (or energy catalyzer) that still are in today, they must have been good edits then.

For instance a significant part of the Cold_fusion#Subsequent_research I brought in.

On Energy Catalyzer I had to work hard to get a bit about Yeong E. Kim in. please note what GRuban assessment was of my conduct there Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive109#Comment_by_mostly_uninvolved_GRuban

I am proud of the contributions I have made to wikipedia in the past.

I am ashamed that I couldn't "see it coming" back then. I have changed, it will not happen again.

There are some comments if this is the right place to appeal. I came to the conclusion that this is the first place to go for appeal Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee#BASC "The Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC) considers appeals from banned or blocked users, generally when all other avenues of appeal have been exhausted. " I thought the appeal here must be done before I can appeal to the BASC.

--POVbrigand (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights

Apologies for not commenting earlier; I've been completely detached from the normal goings-on around here and had to take some time to refresh my memory on this case. To the extent this appeal is directed at me, I decline it; Sandstein's rationale is essentially mine, so I won't repeat it except to emphasize that the very small number of edits since the imposition of the ban is discouraging. To the extent it's directed at other admins, I would advise them to decline it as well. Being an SPA isn't inherently a bad thing; however, when it's laced with the problems such as those demonstrated in the original thread, there needs to be strong evidence there won't be a recurrence upon allowing an editor back into the topic area. I see very little total editing from POVBrigand since the imposition of the band, and this statement does not address the issues laid out by Sandstein below. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved A Question for Knowledge

POVbrigand: You're supposed to demonstrate that your topic ban is no longer needed before filing an appeal. We typically don't give second chances to topic-banned editors unless:

1. They can demonstrate that they can work collaboratively in other areas of Misplaced Pages. (Bring a few articles GA or FA status, for example.)
2. They can explain what went so horribly wrong the last time around.
3. They can explain what they can do to prevent the same problems from happening again.

AE: Given the lack of the above, that POVbrigand is apparently an SPA, and that POVbrigand has virtually no contributions to Misplaced Pages since their topic-ban, I respectfully recommend that the AE admins decline this request. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by IRWolfie-

This editors constant POV pushing on this topic wasted everyones time (mine included) before he was topic banned. Consider also that this is not POVbrigand's only account, rather it is purely a SPA. This account is specifically to edit Cold Fusion and related articles : "I found out that my account is best described as a Misplaced Pages:Single-purpose_account. I have / had another account since mid 2004 that I currently do not use. I might use it again after my interest for "cold fusion" goes away."

We currently have the fairly weird situation where this editor is topic banned, but we don't know his original account! I find this really puzzling, but one of the conditions for POVbrigand being able to make an appeal was that he reveal his previous account: . There was no consensus at User_talk:Roger_Davies/Archive_26#POVbrigand that the requirement to reveal the account be removed (someone merely expressed their view on it, but that's not the same thing).

As an aside, perhaps can an arbcom member perhaps double check his other account to make sure it has not become active again in any future appeal? POVbrigand has broken his topic ban previously, and retiring your account isn't the same as closing it. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by POVbrigand

Result of the appeal by POVbrigand

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

• I would decline this appeal on procedural grounds because it does not make an argument either (a) why The Blade of the Northern Lights should not have imposed the ban, or (b) that the appellant understands why the ban was imposed and what has changed in the meantime such that it is no longer necessary (see, by analogy, WP:GAB#Give a good reason for your unblock). It may be noteworthy that since the ban was imposed on 25 June 2012, POVbrigand has violated it on at least one occasion by editing Martin Fleischmann (a person associated with cold fusion research) on 5 August 2012. Additionally, POVbrigand has since made relatively few edits to other topic areas, which is not a good sign. If we decline the appeal on these grounds, we do not need to answer the question of whether we are competent to discuss it in the first place (cf. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Comment by Heim).  Sandstein  13:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

After consideration of the appeal as amended on 19:59, 4 March 2013, I would still decline it. Procedurally, I don't see why we should perform an in-depth review of a ban before the editor has even appealed it to the sanctioning administrator. On the merits, the original sanction seems to have been imposed, not only because of the pointiness, but also because POVbrigand was found to have been a single-purpose account with an obscure prior history of using other account(s) who was dedicated to advocating for a more favorable depiction of cold fusion, a fringe theory. The appeal does not address these problems, and in view of my observations above, I think that it's unlikely that lifting the ban will help improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of scientific topics.  Sandstein  23:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Sandstein that we need to be convinced that something has changed since the topic ban was originally placed. The mere passage of time (during which POVbrigand made only a handful of edits to any other topic) is not enough. Regarding Sandstein's last comment: until Arbcom makes a new decision on the matter WP:AE is still one of the venues where topic bans can be appealed. In my opinion we are still a community discussion noticeboard as designated in the Trusilver decision. Search results indicate at least 50 appeals that have being handled here. Over the past three years Arbcom must have noticed that appeals were being handled at AE and they have made no objection to this practice. The appeals are not *required* to be here, they could also be made at ANI or AN, according to Trusilver. Before the Trusilver decision the process for appeals was more vague. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• I, too, see insufficient grounds for a successful appeal, as there is no substantial basis on which to determine that the past behaviour is unlikely to recur. So I do not support lifting this topic ban. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Considering that nobody supports this appeal, if that doesn't change, I'll close the request as declined in about 24 hours.  Sandstein  12:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Fyunck(click)

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Fyunck(click)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 19:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#All parties reminded and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 6 March 2013 Re-re-re-pushing an anti-diacritics agenda yet again (which isn't problematic at the AE level, probably, in itself), at Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles, with a comment (detailed below) that is difficult to interpret except as a jingoistic attack on non-native English speakers categorically, and as such as a WP:ARBATC violation.
2. Other diffs (below) are relevant for demonstrating that this is part of a general long-term pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUNDing, with regard to diacritics, which the editor is returning to after a period of comparative peace; they're probably too old for action as AE issues themselves. Then again, a case can be made that comments like this on the editor's own talk page aren't likely to be noticed immediately, unless someone were being a talkpage stalker.

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

1. Not required, since WT:AT has a prominent WP:ARBATC warning atop it. But has been warned anyway:
2. Warned on 16 November 2012 by HandsomeFella (talk · contribs) for editwarring about diacritics. Fyunck(click) reacted with noted hostility.
3. Effectively warned on in November 2012 by being mentioned at and participating in a WP:ANI report against LittleBenW (talk · contribs) who was subsequently topic-banned from diacritics debates for anti-diacritics campaigning. To his credit, Fyunck(click)'s participation at this ANI thread came across as reasonable and distancing from the diacritics debate, but the editor has clearly returned to the topic in force.
4. Others (below) relevant for pattern-establishment purposes, but are not "fresh".

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The statement at issue is: "The only place I've seen huge amounts of diacritics is here on wikipedia, but with so many non-English-first editors these days that shift is to be expected." It seems to be a violation of WP:ARBATC's "personalizing style or title disputes" prohibition. While it could theoretically be interpreted as a poorly worded concession that Fyunck(click) recognizes per WP:BIAS that diacritics are valid in article titles and text, and is thus is announcing he'll WP:JUSTDROPIT, this is unfortunately clearly not actually the case; it's a condemnatory "there goes the neighborhood"-style complaint; the statement is juxtaposed in the same post with an array of rehashed anti-diacritics arguments, so it is certainly not any such concession. I don't think it deserves a block or topic ban under ARBATC discretionary sanctions – AE is far too ban-happy of late – but certainly calls for an explicit administrative warning with regard to them.

Evidence of a pattern (just a few bits from the editor's own talk page, without getting into RM and other discussions, which are numerous and provide similar grist):

• Fyunck(click)'s 1 March 2012 comment by Fyunck(click) also comes across as a categorically hostile statement against non-native English speakers, and Swedish Wikipedians especially: "It's not always easy with so many users wanting to use their foreign tongues and alphabets. It took awhile to change Djokovic, Ivanovic and Navratilova too... we win some and we lose some. Plus we also find, particularly with Swedish names, that if you change to proper English they will illegally canvas on their own language's wikis." While this is too old, probably, for AE action, it's clear evidence of personalization of disputes (the quoted part here is followed by a specific but unsupported claim of WP:TAGTEAMing by Swedish editors in general.
• See also Fyunck(click)'s "my way or the highway"-type statement the same day regarding his outlandish interpretations of policy to be anti-diacritics: "You may not like it but that's how it is."
• Here's another "personalizing" edit that same day, against an admin critical of anti-diacritics campaigning.
• An August 2012 warning, falling on deaf ears, about bucking consensus in a diacritics-related WP:RM.
• Blocked in July 2012 for editwarring over diacritics. Etc., etc.

I'm skeptical that being quiet on the issue for a few months means you get a free pass to be incivil en masse to everyone who prefers diacritics, and especially denigrating the editing rationales and dismissing the concerns of non-native English speakers simply because they're all a bunch of foreigners who don't know proper English, as Fyunck(click) has basically said twice in two different ways, a sentiment this editor has been consistent about for a long time given how long it is between those two diffs. I've seen other similar comments at specific RMs on article talk pages, but these two ought to be enough, in concert with the overall evidence of a tendentious and combative campaign of advocacy against diacritics on Misplaced Pages.

Disclosure: I disagree with Fyunck(click)'s anti-diacritics position on both logical and policy grounds, even aside from anti-foreigner statement, have debated with this user about the topic before, and I was also the one who filed the ANI notice with regard to LittleBenW's editwarring on the matter, a discussion in which Fyunck(click) was included by LittleBenW, as the two has long been in communication about their common diacritics interest (see their talkpages and archives thereof). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 19:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

19:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC) by SMcCandlish

Discussion concerning Fyunck(click)

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Fyunck(click)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Fyunck(click)

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