Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.

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

Antidiskriminator

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

Request concerning Antidiskriminator

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

ARBMAC

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

1. Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 2 and Talk:Pavle Đurišić from 9/08/12 onwards, User:Antidiskriminator has created nearly two dozen separate sections on Talk:Pavle Đurišić about supposed deficiencies in Pavle Đurišić causing a great deal of disruption with only minor improvement to the article but until 03/10/12 refused to substantively edit in article space to address the supposed deficiencies, instead expecting the editors that had helped promote the article to MILHIST A-Class and FA to do so apparently in order to gather evidence that those editors are not abiding by WP:NPOV in relation to the general topic of Chetniks - Pavle Đurišić was a Chetnik. See also [1].
2. move to German-occupied Serbia 12/09/12 Started a second RM immediately after an RM was closed Not Moved. This RM was also closed (on 21 August 2012) with the result Not Moved. Disruption and failure to accept a lack of consensus for a title change.
3. [2] 29/09/12 Dominated this thread making observations about the alleged behaviour of editors opposing a title change. Disruption and failure to accept a lack of consensus for a title change.
4. [3] 10/09/12 Started another thread about the title, again making observations about the alleged behaviour of editors opposing a title change. Continued disruption and failure to accept a lack of consensus for a title change.
5. [4] 14/09/12 Started another thread about the title, again making observations about the alleged behaviour of editors opposing a title change. Same again.
6. [5] 18/09/12 Started another thread about the title, again making observations about the alleged behaviour of editors opposing a title change. Same again.
7. [6] 29/09/12 WP:WIKIHOUNDING but request here [[7] to stop has been ignored and the behaviour has continued, and escalated, with specific references being made to the lack of consensus for the RMs at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia.

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

1. Warned on [8] 19/10/10 by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) in relation to not accepting consensus at Skanderbeg - I know this is old, but I included it just to show that User:Antidiskriminator has been well aware of the ARBMAC sanctions for a long time and has prior form for not accepting consensus.
2. Warned on [9] 17/08/12 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) in relation to 3RR/edit-warring on Religion in Albania
3. Warned on [10] 02/09/12 by PRODUCER (talk · contribs) in relation to edit-warring on Pavle Djurisic
4. Warned on [11] 06/09/12 by ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs) in relation to edit-warring on Siege of Shkodra
5. Warned on [12] 23/09/12 by DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) in relation to disruption (ARBMAC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I consider User:Antidiskriminator has been highly disruptive across several articles which fall under the ARBMAC sanctions for a period of six weeks or more, including a complete failure to accept that there has been a lack of consensus for a title change. I should probably have reported their behaviour before this, but am a relatively new user and have not had much experience with filing reports, especially not at this level. I want to say up-front that I have found User:Antidiskriminator's behaviour very frustrating, and I may have strayed off the civility path on a couple of occasions due to that frustration and numerous provocations. I am aware that is no excuse and accept that I may be sanctioned myself for that, and will take any such sanction with good grace. However, I feel that since DIREKTOR's warning, the WP:WIKIHOUNDING has taken this beyond the bounds of what could possibly be acceptable and that, combined with User:Antidiskriminator's behaviour on a number of ARBMAC articles, makes it appropriate to file this report now. I just want User:Antidiskriminator to accept when there is no consensus for a move (or edit), stop disrupting articles with long lists of demands on the talkpage and expecting other editors to comply with their demands, and stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING me (which is in my view directly related to the failure to accept lack of consensus and continued disruption). I believe some form of coercion is necessary to get them to stop their disruption and related behaviour.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[13]

Discussion concerning User:Antidiskriminator

Statement by User:Antidiskriminator

• After Peacemaker67 requested A-class review of Pavle Đurišić at WikiProject Serbia (diff) (where I am one of the most active members), I responded to his request and started being involved with this article (and many other articles about WWII in Yugoslavia, including major battles and offensives). Here is a list of my contributions to Pavle Đurišić article. I don't think my edits (of this or any other article) were "an endless succcession of tedious, unproductive squabbling" because they pointed out valid flaws and were used as a tool to improve the quality of the article. If I am wrong, I sincerely apologize.
• My first edit of the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia was nine months before ‎Peacemaker67 started editing wikipedia. I tried to help resolving the name issue of this article and decided to give up on 25 September although I believe my efforts were constructive and supported by the majority of editors.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning User:Antidiskriminator

Comment by Athenean

I don't see anything remotely actionable in the limited evidence provided by Peacemaker, especially with respect to WP:HOUND. I think part of the problem is that Peacemaker is misunderstanding WP:HOUND. Extended talkpage discussions are not Wikihounding, if someone tires of a discussion the simplest and best thing to do is to leave. Providing links to talkpage threads is completely unhelpful and meaningless. I have interacted with Antidiskriminator in the past and have always found him to be model of civility and courteous behavior, even when he is the victim of incivil behavior, as is often the case. He has a clean block log and is always careful to provide sources for his edits. He is also highly skilled at finding sources difficult to access, and as such is a valuable contributor to this topic area. Athenean (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The only wikihounding I see here is by Gaius Claudius Nero (bringing up year-old diffs, now that's wikihounding), not to mention accusations of bad faith and conspiracy theories. Athenean (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by WhiteWriter

I also dont find anything sanctionable here. Based on my previous experiences with User:Antidiskriminator, he may be regarded as great, highly relevant and good faithed editor, with great knowledge of wiki guidelines and usage of sources and references. Also, i never saw that he lost his temper, even for a bit, which is priceless. Diffs presented are unrelated to the WPHOUND. I also highly doubt that user is capable to do any guidelines breach, as it was presented. In the end, editor for example. Also, as i already stated on ANI, this AE is nothing more then try to eliminate opposing side in a dispute, in a previously successful traveling circus attack way, usually unrelated to the problem. Antid's numerous constructive propositions to solve the obvious problem with page Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia are obviously problematic for some. Therefore, i can expect several editors included in this problem to recall any problematic situation from the past and present, in order to fulfill this request. This is a example where content dispute can end, in a traveling circus caravan. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by PRODUCER

I found Anti's behavior at the Pavle Đurišić article to constitute tendentious editing and to be belligerent. After the article had been promoted to FA status for some time (28 August), Anti took his first personal A-class review [14] and then he cut up his points into sections on the article's talk page where he tried whatever tactic he could to remove information he personally disliked and push in information he does like, in essence throwing whatever can stick. After that he rehashed them twice [15][16] and posted them as reasons as to why the article should not be A class article! Reaching whatever reason he can no matter how baseless, unfounded, the long length discussion, or the numerous sections in which they were discussed:

• Communist subordination:
  • On 26 August, he brought it up in his initial review [17]
  • On 24 August, since that failed, he brought it up again at the article talkpage [18]
  • On 3 September, since that failed, he brought it up in his rehashed review [19]

• Family/parents:
  • On 15 August, he brought it up in his initial review [20]
  • On 24 August, since that failed, he brought it up again at the article talkpage [21]
  • On 3 September, since that failed, he brought it up in his rehashed review [22]
• Iron Cross:
  • On 22 August he claimed that there is a controversy [23]
  • On 25 August, since that failed, he claimed that there was undue weight [24],
  • On 31 August, since that failed, he attacked the source that supports the award. [25]
  • On 3 September, since that failed, he stated all at once that it is disputed, that there's undue weight, and that the source used is unreliable in his rehashed review [26]
• A song:
  • On 26 August, he brought it up in his initial review [27]
  • On 2 September, since that failed, he brought it up again at the article talkpage [28]
• Berane:
  • On 26 August, he brought it up in his initial review [29]
  • On 2 September, since that failed, he brought it up again at the article talkpage [30]
  • On 18 September, since that failed, again brought it up [31]

These are by no means the only diffs available, in many cases Anti takes one topic and interjects it while discussing another. To further his control of the talk page (in what I can only interpret as an attempt to WP:OWN it) he makes use of a "unresolved" template for every discussion in which he does not have a favorable outcome (no matter how long the matter was discussed or how weak his arguments) and reverts anyone who dares modify them. [32][33] To Anti users on the talk page are a blockade of sorts and continues to refuse to get the point and simply reiterates the same views and points he held previously through duplicate sections and discussions. The same editorial behavior can be found on the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article where with WhiteWriter he has attempted to push their POV (including that of PANONIAN who was banned on AE for his disruptive behavior [34]) continuously and over many redundant sections. His support of him is no surprise. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Another Greek editor aware of this discussion and vouching for Anti? Hmmm... --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I note that Antidiskriminator was blocked indefinitely on his Serbian account early this year for his disruptive behavior and "systematic trolling". [35][36] He was blocked by four different admins for the same behavioral problem on numerous occasions in the past. [37] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by ZjarriRrethues

• The report summarizes Antidiskriminator's decorum breaches and editing very concisely. The major issue regarding Antidiskriminator is his denial to accept consensus which is followed by semi-"retaliatory" acts i.e. wikihounding among others. On Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia he kept starting new discussions on the same topics using different arguments every time as he couldn't gain approval. As that was becoming an ad infinitum situation he followed Peacemaker67 and disputed him on articles he had never shown any interest in(Pavle Durisic etc.). There's a long history of that particular kind of editing as evidenced by the ARBMAC warnings (first in 2010 for restarting the same debates against consensus; latest in 2012 for the same reasons) and edit-warring warnings.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• What does Antidiskriminator mean by the second part of his statement? The result of his RM was no consensus. Where does he base his belief that his proposal regarding the title issue was supported by the majority of editors?
• That being said, source and especially RS abuse has been a major issue as Antidiskriminator uses them selectively and always insists that his sources are RS regardless of their extreme nature. For example, on Vulnetari (Albanian semi-collaborationist unit of WWII) he was using Smilja Avramov, a councillor of Milosevic and flagrant anti-semite who among others has written that Olaf Palme, JF Kennedy and Aldo Moro were all killed by the Trilateral Commission because they broke the vow of secrecy ...the destruction of Yugoslavia was a joint endeavour of the Vatican and the US establishment. Four (Peacemaker67, Aigest, PRODUCER, I) users who pointed out the nature of his sources got WP:IDHT responses about the arguments being unrelated to RS and that RSN was needed (Talk:Vulnetari#General comment). The wikilawyering was followed by an article he wrote on Smilja Avramov that essentially constitutes whitewashing as he labeled her a law expert and omitted everything controversial including her beliefs on the Protocols of Zion, her involvement in the Yugoslav Wars and most recently her decision to act as a defendant witness in the cases of Karadzic/Mladic. In fact, he chose to only use one source, which, in fact, doesn't mention her at all (given url).

• An update in regard to recent edits by Antidiskriminator:
• 14:00, 1 September 2012: Antidiskriminator in a section on Pavle Durisic regarding his Iron Cross: You did not give me any time to present sources before you labeled my comment as original research. That was not polite nor constructive. Here are some sources which support information that there are claims that he actually did not receive Iron Cross ... General Milan Nedić, Том 2, Stanislav Krakov Antidiskriminator presents a work by Stanislav Krakov as a source.
• 09:46, 14 October 2012: Antidiskriminator in the same section on Pavle Durisic regarding his Iron Cross: Krakov was not historian and I did not propose to use him as source nor I dispute anything you wrote about Stanislav Krakov

--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, Antidiskriminator's indef ban[38][39] on sr.wikipedia is quite instructive. PRODUCER, could you explain the conditions, which lead to the indef ban, for those of us that don't speak Serbo-Croatian?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Gaius Claudius Nero

I have been Wikihounded by Antidiskriminator for more than a year (I considered retiring because of it) and never brought myself to reporting the constant offenses he had made against me. Below are some of what I perceived as violations which he had made against me since 2010 (out of what could be much more):

• Talk:Albanian–Venetian War (1447–1448): Here you can see a constant barrage of WP:IDHT and the flood of messages constantly repeating the same points over and over again.
• [40]: Here he is violating WP:Battle by bringing up an irrelevant topic (Harry Hodgkinson's reliability which we had debated on other topics) in order to trap me into making an admission that the source he mentions is unreliable, even though it had never before been mentioned in the talk page.
• [41]: Here he is again violating WP:Battle by giving me an ultimatum for what he considered original research (for something which I think is WP:Common Sense) and violates the rules of cooperation (although I later changed it the way he asked me, something I could have done much more quickly if he did not try to trap me into an ultimatum).
• [42]: Here he is violating WP:AGF by stating that I hid sources from him (although he later apologized).
• Template talk:Campaignbox Ottoman–Albanian Wars: Here he is again violating WP:IDHT and refusing to cooperate with me even I signalled to him that I wanted to try to reach a consensus (Just so you know, I'm trying to reach a consensus with you...)
• [43]: Here he violates WP:AGF and attacks me for a personal error, also showing blatant incivility.

Like I said, these are only a few of what could be more and they are the cases that I remember most because they are some of the earliest cases. There are many instances where he came into a talk page soon after I edited there for the FIRST time (eg. compare [44] to [45] and compare [46] to [47]), I assume from constantly checking my contributions log (although there could of course be other ways, but I could find more examples if requested). This is what WP:HOUND says: Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is definitely the impression that I got from his constant confrontation on most of the pages I work on (mostly ones with the medieval history). WP:HOUND also says this: The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. Although I hate to admit, the main reason I considered retiring from Wikipedia (even though I enjoyed it very much) was because I was constantly being Wikihounded by Antidiskriminator. Now that I see that I'm not the only one being Wikihounded, it is clear to me that a topic ban (maybe for three months which he might later be reconsidered) is the best means to rectify this situation, that is, of course, if the administrator is willing to consider it as such.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional comments: It is interesting that Athenean is taking part in this since he rarely ever participated in the topics which Antidiskriminator is being reported for. If I may take a moment here to describe something which I came across when responding to one of Antidiskriminator's messages to me: this diff which leads to this looks like Athenean trying to recruit Antidiskriminator for his witch-hunt of Albanian sock-puppet accounts (many of which have been proven to be false). To me, it seems obvious why Athenean is defending Antidiskrimator here (who most often sparred with Albanian editors at the time), despite rarely participating in the discussions which Antidiskriminator participated at the time. I won't state it explicitly because I believe it is self-evident.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Athenean says that I am a Wikihounder. I will fully disclose myself as I feel it is necessary: I saved these links from a long time ago in anticipation that I would file a report, but I never got around to it. If I was a true Wikihounder, I would not even include any of these and only include recent diffs. He also says I assume bad faith. I have tried to be as fair as possible (eg. I mentioned that he later apologized) and obviously, this is not entirely possible as I am a human being. (It seems like he is annoyed that I called him out, but I feel like it is necessary to show that he has a horse in this race.)--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree fully with the comments of Director and endorse them. I have observed the same exact thing.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Alexikoua's "evidence" that there was a disagreement is so vaguely constructed that anybody could spin it. The topic of disagreement is also so minor that it would be hard to gain any sort of knowledge from it. Alexikoua had no significant stake in the article so he of course conceded. If he did have a stake (ie. if he was a significant editor with plenty of sources), he would be facing a mine of WP:Battle and would face the same annoyance most other editors are finding here. Furthermore, Alexikoua and Antidiskriminator had never (or rarely) disagreed with each other so he therefore faced no hostility.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Nouniquenames

To the best of my knowledge, I've had no prior interaction with the individuals involved here. Anti could use some polishing, certainly, but (to pick a [48] complaint] above at random) unsourced information is not to stay, and without a deadline, it might stay indefinitely. I can understand the logic, at least, and it certainly wasn't common sense. I didn't see the accused battleground either. Producer seems to show that Anti disagreed about an article's assessment, which is, at best, a content dispute. It seems odd that a RM is considered disruptive, especially given the article's title at the time.

I won't take the space here to go through every point, (in part because I haven't the time,) but if those are a representative sample, I see nothing warranting the requested action, nor necessarily meeting the threshold of hounding. --Nouniquenames 04:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by DIREKTOR

I was largely on the margins of Antidiskriminator's more recent disruptive activities, however in my experience, the user displays a very obvious pattern of POV-pushing and WP:TE. As PRODUCER pointed out above, Antidiskriminator has a daily hobby of creating WP:BATTLEGROUNDS in the form of sixteen sections or so, posted one after the other, where he conducts simultaneous POV-pushing on several topic and several talkpages at once. All singularly according to the Serbian-nationalist point of view. He has WP:WIKIHOUNDED his perceived "anti-Serbian opponents" to several articles, where he continues to simply "oppose" without regard to sources and user consensus.

The user does not edit articles, but merely argues to no end. Consequently, he also never presents specific suggestions, which could allow for a more focused debate that might actually conceivably end at some point. Its just vague, pointless quibbling day after day.

He usually has no sources, or has cherry-picked sources, or his sources are obviously biased to the point of comedy, etc.. Typically, he will post one of his myriad "complaint sections" on a talkpage, demanding some undefined change or other. Even when people arrive and basically say "go ahead, lets see what you have in mind (why aren't you editing?)" - he will actually continue to "debate" even though his edits essentially aren't opposed (cf the eight sections he started just on Talk:Chetniks, particularly this thread). Having no real support in sources, the user will typically attempt to abuse WP:DR, posting a succession of RfCs and 3Os and what not - basically trying to convince others so that he might still push unsourced nonsense into the text.

Generally speaking, the user's conduct is annoying to no end. Productive users who do actual research (like Peacemaker) are forced to deal with his brand of Balkans-nationalist WP:TE and endless disruption day in day out, farcical RfC after farcical RfC - instead of contributing to the project. He never gives up, regardless of how unsupported his position is. When policy is pointed to him, he calls it a "personal attack", basically ignores it, and just continues on - e.g. his ignoring this report as well. For months now the user has been posting one section after another on Talk:Pavle Đurišić, again and again and again, "complaint" after "complaint" in endless succession, one more biased and baseless than the next. Frankly, if the user is not sanctioned now for this wide-scale disruption - I can easily see this sort of nonsense continuing on indefinitely. -- Director (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Nick-D

On 19 September Antidiskriminator reposted sections of some of my comments at WP:RSN at Talk:Pavle Đurišić in such a way that they appeared to suggest that I supported their position, when in fact I did not. This was shortly before they were warned of the Eastern European editing restrictions, and when I confronted him or her about on 24 September they apologised. As far as I was concerned the matter was concluded, with no harm done other than further hardening my aversion to offering an opinion on this kind of dispute. However, I'm surprised to see that this fraudulent post attributed to me is still on the article's talk page (I actually thought it had been removed). Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Fut.Perf.

From my own experience with Antidiskriminator on some Kosovo-related pages, and from observing him from a distance on a number of other "ethnic" troublespots (mostly Serbian-Albanian), I share the view that A. is a textbook case of a tendentious editor and needs to be restricted. It's maybe not so much any one particular set of offensive edits I'd point to, but just the overall picture of the "travelling circus": an endless succcession of tedious, unproductive squabbling, always related to the same predictable agenda issues. For concrete examples, I find Direktor's links to the Pavle Ðurišić talkpage instructive. Talk:Pavle Đurišić#Iron cross controversy is a particular illustrative section, showing an infuriating obtuseness in repeatedly failing to substantiate an alleged NPOV concern when asked to do so. After making an unsourced claim, Antidiskriminator spent three posts over ten days squabbling over the term "original research", until finally beginning to address the obvious issue that he hadn't provided sources to back up his claim; he never proceeded to explaining what point those (foreign-language) sources were actually making. The section a bit further down, related to the same issue (Talk:Pavle Đurišić#Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War) is equally illustrative. Can't act as an uninvolved admin on this one, but would certainly recommend sanctions of some sort. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually Antidiskriminator did provide sources with quotes and their translation at the end of the iron cross thread. These remained unreplied it seems. I agree that his initial approach was unproductive. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

No. He did that only after seeing Fut. Perf's comment. [49] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right; I should have checked the chronology more carefully. There's indeed a six-week gap between Antidiskriminator's last post there (Oct 13) and Peacemaker67's last post above it (Sep 28). Tijfo098 (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Tijfo098

Looking at the threads indicated by FPaS I think Peacemaker67 deserves and equal restriction. He repeatedly brushed off several RS/N discussions that brought in question (w/academic reviews) the source Peacemaker67 was relying upon (Cohen). That such a source is used in a FA only shows how pathetic Wikipedia really is. If one side can use yellow journalism in articles then so can the other. And don't say it was published by an academic publisher. It's an obscure university press publishing someone with no degree in history (and who found real success in Croatia). See the recently closed thread we had on User:JCAla, who was heavily relying on a similar book for a comparison. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It would not be correct to say Antidiskriminator was wrong in his demands and "complaints" every single time: that would be quite an achievement. When someone posts dozens upon dozens of threads pushing in the same nationalist-POV direction, one or two are bound to have some kind of real support. I myself agreed that he might have a point several times, including the Cohen issue. But equally as such cases are drops in a sea of WP:TE are Peacemaker's possible errors of the above sort only drops in the sea of excellent, diligent, and thoroughly-researched contribution on a very difficult and obscure topic. Whereas antid is there merely to squabble and complain, continuously and without end, Peacemaker is the guy who's hard work and extensive contribs he's criticizing.

When someone harasses and hounds you all over the project, impeding your efforts with incessant, pointless, malicious bickering, it's hard to view the 27th complaint in good faith. I've often remarked on the tendency to simply "block everybody" or treat everyone as equally "guilty", but to treat these two users in such a way might be a new low in that regard. Their behavior and value to the project are not even comparable. That's my take anyway. -- Director (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here is Wikipedia's inherently flawed system of "review". Basically Antidiskriminator was raising talk page points about perceived flaws in the article, while Peacemaker67 was complaining (sometimes using colorful phrases like "Blind Freddy" as in this thread) that Antidiskriminator is not editing the article. Outside of Wikipedia, a reviewer will not edit your paper. And in the few occasions that outside opinion was solicited (as in that thread I linked), both Antidiskriminator and Peacemaker67 were found to advance statements not supported by the sources cited (cf. WP:3O provided by User:Gigs there). Perhaps in the overall picture one is more at fault than the other, but in this article, I don't see why one should be sanctioned and the other not. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Your point is academic. This is not outside WP, this IS WP and policies and norms of WP apply. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's a less academic point. Read Talk:Ante_Pavelić#Unbeliveable_and_Laughable. There Peacemaker67 supports the inclusion of a source which says that "There was not even the slightest indication of antisemitism in the Ustaša ". I fully support a topic ban on him at this point. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

And speaking of the regulars in this area: the bio that DIREKTOR + PRODUCER produced for Jozo Tomasevich was laughable, by the way. Stanford University in San Francisco, eh? [50] Nobody caught that for 6 months. Gives you pause about Wikipedia's readers. Oh, and he didn't actually teach at Stanford. But according to Peacemaker67 he called Ante Pavelic with the appellation "Dr." Hmm.... Tijfo098 (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Now just wait a second. Firstly, I can't imagine what that has to do with anything. Secondly, if you're looking for random irregularities in the "Balkalns Articles" I suggest you set aside a few months for the search alone. Thirdly, I can't remember anymore but I'm reasonably certain people didn't actually make things up there: at best those are good faith errors, but also, here's a link from stanford.edu describing Tomasevich as "Stanford's professor" [51]. (If you think that the location of Stanford is general knowledge over here half-way across the world - think again :). We're more acquainted with places like the peaceful university town of Sorbonne..)

Finally, as I believe this is a free encyclopedia, I don't think anyone could possibly be topic banned for advocating the reliability of a scholarly source with some considerable peer review support, not without an action appeal anyway. I recommend Tijfo, that you view antid's behavior on the whole, rather than just this Cohen business, which seems to have struck a cord? The matter was discussed at WP:RSN, you don't propose to sanction everyone who didn't oppose Cohen's inclusion? (btw, I do agree that he probably isn't RS, now that I've had time to refresh my memory, but being wrong isn't something you sanction people for - as opposed to a pattern of nationalist POV-pushing and TE). That's it from me, I'm off to the islands and will need to declare a wikibreak :)

P.s. That Cohen quote is very much out of context. He is there referring to the early years of the Ustaše, when they were under Mussolini's wing. At that time Mussolini didn't express much anti-semitic sentiment either. And Cohen is Jewish after all, kind of hard to imagine him excusing anti-semitisim. -- Director (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

With respect Tijfo098, can we try to keep this on topic and in context? You have so far raised out-of-context content issues on Ante Pavelic and seriously misrepresented the discussions at that. You have also seriously misrepresented and exaggerated discussions on RSN and at Pavle Djurisic about Cohen. My understanding of this place on WP is that you need to try to focus your discussion on the behaviour of Antidiskriminator that is the subject of the report, not obscure matters with off-topic discussions of my work on Ante Pavelic, where Antidiskriminator has yet to appear. If you think that my conduct on Ante Pavelic warrants a report, please go ahead, but this thread is clearly not the place. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight the quote that Tijfo098 is mocking and even advocating topic-banning Peacemaker over is actually from Ivo Goldstein and a part of a work from the Jewish Studies at the Central European University. This is what's really "laughable" here. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Admins should note the WP:BATTLE conduct of the DIREKTOR - PRODUCER - Peacemaker troika, who repeatedly bring issues unrelated to article improvement to Talk:Jozo Tomasevich. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I say you come here with unclean hands. You brought issues unrelated to this AE report to this forum, which was completely inappropriate. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Alexikoua

I really don't see anything remotely actionable according to this limited ammount of evidence provided against Antidiskriminator. In fact Antidiskriminator is one of the few editors that strictly follows the guidelines, especially about Balkan related topics. Although in the past I had some minor content disputes with him, I was surprised with the way he approaches the various issues and welcomes any third part opinion.

If one Balkan editor should receive some kind of restriction that's off course not him.Alexikoua (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

For example here [[52]] I was firmly against the creation of Independent Albania article by Antit., nevertheless he was kind enough to answer this [[53]]. Although I was still against the creation of this article Antint. is one of the few editors that stays calm and avoids to make things hot.Alexikoua (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning User:Antidiskriminator

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mooretwin

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.
Appealing user Mooretwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Mooretwin (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Sanction being appealed Indefinite topic ban on articles, discussions, and other content related to The Troubles, the Ulster banner and British baronets, imposed at [[54]]. The decision allowed for an appeal after six months. The decision was imposed on 10 February 2012, therefore six months passed on 10 August 2012. Administrator imposing the sanction T. Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification. Statement by Mooretwin 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. I've largely restricted myself to updating sports articles, as a scan through "My Contributions" will testify. Not much collaboration, I'm afraid, although I did instigate a discussion that led to a consensus for merging an article: 1. I'll notify T. Canens. Mooretwin (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC) It would be unreasonable, surely, if the ban were not lifted because of the single inocuous (and constructive) edit idenfitied by T. Canens. And why was I even banned from "British baronetcies" anyway? Bizarre. On the wider point, how is it possible to demonstrate collaborative editing if I am banned from all the topics about which I have sufficient knowledge to contribute? Mooretwin (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Statement by T. Canens 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) Sanctions stay in place until and unless they are successfully appealed. Had Mooretwin actually asked for the baronetcies to be removed from the topic ban, I would likely have obliged. They did not. I agree with Tznkai's proposed close. T. Canens (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Mooretwin 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) Regarding the baronets block, this was initially added to the standard troubles wording due to edit warring in that area by users like Vintagekits. It has long ceased to be an area of contention and an appeal two months ago by another user resulted in that part of the wording being struck from the remedy. While existing sanctions do still include the Baronets portion, it would seem harsh in this case to sanction an editor for a minor edit to a topic which they had never edited in a disruptive way in the past. Valenciano (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Mooretwin This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. 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) Generally I'm opposed to lifting indef sanctions on the basis of their being waited out. If we were putting somebody out of an area for a specific length of time we'd issue a ban of definite duration. HJ Mitchell is making a similar point (in an unrelated thread) below. Indef bans are issued to adjust behaviour until such time that it is fixed. Thus the only reason we have to lift such bans is demonstrable changes in the behaviour that led to the ban. In this case the diff Tim Canens lists above shows MooreTwin has in fact infringed the ban within the last week. For my money, even if we mark this down as a mistake MooreTwin's activities involved little collaboration with others. As harmonious collaborative editing is at the heart of the issue that led to MooreTwin's ban I'd be open to reviewing this again after MooreTwin shows more collaboration on site--Cailil talk 21:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Well, if the decision explicitly allows an appeal after 6 months time (which it did), I don't think it's reasonable to keep the sanction standing just on principle. However, maybe it is better to use a gradual approach. We can narrow the topic ban now, to give the user the chance to contribute positively in areas he is competent in, and consider the remaining ban later. Concretely, I suggest to limit the topic ban to The Troubles (which is a hotspot of trouble anyways) now, and to allow an appeal for the rest of the ban to be lifted in 3 to 6 months. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC) I've no objection to dropping the clause about British baronetcies from this ban, but in my opinion the indef ban from WP:TROUBLES should stay in place. Mooretwin has an impressive block log and has been here at AE a lot. Unless he wants to present real data to show how collaborative he has been in the past six months I don't see any motive for lifting the ban. The mere passage of time is not enough. EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC) I am broadly in agreement with Stephen Shultz, but also sympathetic to Cailil's viewpoint. I think we should open up an area that is close to (within broadly construed) the problem area and see how Mooretwin is able to edit in that area. This will allow us to actually see if Mooretwin's behavior has changed, or not.--Tznkai (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Agree with the broad thrust above - I see no problem with lifting the Baronets ban - this was removed recently by the Arbcom from the Troubles ruling so I see no reason to leave it in place. However as above I agree with Ed - passage of time has nothing to do with Indefinite sanctions. The 6 month appeal process is there to give the person time to adjust and to show change. In short agree with Steven's suggestion reduce ban to cover troubles only, but leave in place indefinitely until MooreTwin shows more positive collaboration on site in other topic areas--Cailil talk 13:51, 13 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) Closing - Mooretwin may now edit on the topic of British baronetcies but his indefinite ban from WP:TROUBLES remains in place. Per the original terms, appeal can be made every six months. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Hearfourmewesique

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. 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 Hearfourmewesique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Sanction being appealed Topic ban from the subject of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive104#Hearfourmewesique Administrator imposing the sanction NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator [55] Statement by Hearfourmewesique 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. Note to Tijfo098: it really has nothing to do with ARBPIA, which I have been fully respecting ever since the topic ban. Aside from the fact that I've been politely pointing out ad hominem attacks and expressing support for the existence of an article about persecution by Muslims in a civil manner, is there anything you perceive as "behavior issues"? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC) @Tznkai - :I will look for it a little later, have to go soon. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Remark: I've been having a hard time with my internet connection lately, hopefully will have access in two days (it's never steady since I'm a frequent traveler) so I can look into my history. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC) To Tijfo098: Volunteer Marek was consistent in making sure to smear almost each and every "keep" vote, using borderline personal attacks at times, in repeated – and unmasked – attempts to discredit each voter (to quote WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."), as well as reasserting the closing admins with notes restating the obvious, in a manner that can be perceived only as excessively persuasive. Examples: [56] [57] While the expression "in a manner worthy of the finest of spammers" is quite tongue-in-cheek, it's still far from violating WP:CIVIL. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Statement by NuclearWarfare 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) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Hearfourmewesique Was he topic banned? I never noticed [58] [59] [60]. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC) What is has to do with WP:ARBPIA area?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Behavior. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC) @H: "in a manner worthy of finest of spammers" is not a polite expression. And in the same conversation you complain about "the obvious and borderline ad hominem remarks" presumably said by someone else. WP:KETTLE. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Hearfourmewesique This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. 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) Two thoughts occur (my remarks on the AE report that led to this ban are worth reading for context). One is that an indefinite topic ban, though not infinite, is at the more severe end of the spectrum of sanctions we impose at AE (and, having just re-read the original AE report) I'm as convinced now as I was then that the ban is just), so I'm inclined against lifting it before a year has elapsed. The second is that I'd like to know how Hearfourmewesique thinks their presence in the topic area could be of benefit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Still waiting on examples, but I see no purpose to a minimum sentencing attitude if there is any good reason to lift a restriction. We're not serving justice or anything like that.--Tznkai (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC) It is now a week since Tznkai asked Hearfourmewesique asked to 'link to examples of ... working well on Wikipedia in the last six months.' HJMitchell made a similar request. Since no examples have been provided, I suggest that the appeal be declined. It does not make sense for Hearfour to open an appeal if he is unable to follow up with answers. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Unless Hearfour posts within the next 48 hours or so, I agree that this should be closed. T. Canens (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Factocop

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 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Factocop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION This all relates to WP:TROUBLES, specifically the discretionary sanctions under which user:Factocop was topic banned for 3 months on 25 September [61]. 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). "That Factocop is restricted to editing only from one account, and always when logged in." "That Factocop does not use the revert tool (or any variation of it) at all - not even once, and not even to revert clear vandalism..." Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it It is alleged that 46.7.113.111 (talk) is Factocop (talk · contribs). If this is correct then All that ip's contributions in October 2012 are in violation of unblock condition 1 All that ip's contributions to the main, talk and Wikipedia talk namespaces violate the topic ban [62], [63], [64] and [65] are violations of unblock condition 2. 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. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) My understanding is that prior warnings are not required for the unblock conditions. I am unable to find a specific notification of the standard discretionary sanctions, but as Factocop has been sanctioned under them as recently as last month he cannot fail to be aware of them. Additional comments by editor filing complaint 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.[66]. 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. [67] (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) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Factocop: [68] 46.7.113.111: [69] Discussion concerning Factocop Statement by Factocop Comments by others about the request concerning Factocop 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 [70]. 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) Arbcom members don't often comment at ARBE. To get a CU, I would suggest someone files at SPI. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Additional behavioural evidence can be seen here with his socks and here as Factocop, notice the use of the underscore in editors names something which this IP did also with this edit Mo ainm~Talk 17:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry, but without the odd underscore, a user name just looks like a spelling mistake. Soz. Wont use an underscore again mo, ainm high, I will.46.7.113.111 (talk) 21:28, 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) So it's easier for him to move about Northern Ireland and the Republic but he'd much rather take expensive flights to Great Britain in order to edit Wikipedia? I'm not buying that explaination as why would any person after being blocked from a certain IP range, shell out money on flights in order to move to another part of the country to continue disruption which they'd probably know would be reverted anyway? So I don't think that the ip is Factocop. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC) I think moving between the island of Great Britain and Ireland just to get a different IP range is rather significantly unlikely. However, travel between the two for the purposes of work, family, recreation, etc. is very common. All of the relevant contributions from this IP have been in October this year and none show any of the hallmarks of a new user. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC) The fact this IP just happened to appear in topics that Factocop was active in before he got blocked gives a strong hint that circumstantially at least this IP is him and he should have further sanctions placed upon him for breeching those he was already on. Also we must not forget that broadband IP locations do not always match where the user actually is and depends on the service providers exchange in use. I'm using my computer in Northern Ireland but my IP will trace many times to England. Mabuska (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC) It is also possible to mask your IP as something different by using an appropriately located proxy server - say in this case one based in the Republic of Ireland. We also do have older most likely IP socks of Factocop from this old discussion to compare with - 81.187.71.75 and 84.93.157.59 both of which geolocate to England. Also add in this IP 87.113.26.186. All share common articles and discussions of interest i.e. - Eglinton, Giant's Causeway, things to do with Londonderry etc. etc. Yet those 3 IPs locate to different parts of England. We could always add {{IPsock|Factocop|blocked=yes}} to this IP's user page? Mabuska (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC) The anonymous editor in question is not using an anonymising proxy. He or she is in the Republic of Ireland. The question is whether the behavioural evidence is compelling enough for us to conclude that Factocop has travelled or moved to this new location. I humbly submit that it will take rather a lot more than "the IP edits the same topic" to determine there is a connection. You need to make a more detailed submission of appropriate evidence, which ought to answer questions like: Did Factocop behave as this IP does? Do they push a similar edit or agenda? Is their writing style the same? And so on. The AE administrators may want to refer this matter to WP:SPI for investigation by a more experienced hand; socking is not really AE's area of skill (nor, apparently, that of the other commentators here). HTH, AGK [•] 17:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Result concerning Factocop This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The IP in question geolocates to Dublin, Ireland; someone who knows where Factocop has operated out of could answer whether or not a connection is plausible/likely. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC) The IPs in the SPI archive all came from the UK. T. Canens (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Checkuser comment: It is technically  Possible that the IP discussed in this complaint is operated by Factocop, but I could not make a more firm assertion of socking at this point. The IP should probably be blocked as an obvious sock of somebody (though not provably of Factocop), but I do not think checkuser data supports action against Factocop unless there is additional, behavioural evidence that proves a connection. I leave the question of whether this IP unarguably behaves like Factocop to the enforcement administrators. AGK [•] 11:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC) This looks a lot like griefing by one of the longer term sockmasters. The arguments are similar to Factocop's (but aso many others'); for me its the response here to Mo Anim that raises an eyebrow. I'm wondering if this might be the sockmaster who was egging Factocop on (and hounding Mo Anim), rather than Factocop himself: see User:Carnival Fred and User:Borundi 499--Cailil talk 11:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Upon looking in detail, I have to agree this looks like an unrelated sockmaster pulling a fast one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC) AGK is correct that the IP should be blocked regardless. On the evidence before us, I agree that there is not enough evidence for us to conclude that the IP is Factocop. /wave my SPI clerk hat T. Canens (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Closing, IP hardblocked 3 months. T. Canens (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Paul Magnussen, Sirswindon, and InigmaMan

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

Request concerning Paul Magnussen, Sirswindon, and InigmaMan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tijfo098 (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

• Paul Magnussen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sirswindon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• InigmaMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm filing this as a single request because there is little difference in their behavior and position. In some cases, one editor deletes content and another from this group then presents long argumentation in support of deletion on the talk page.

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

R&I discretionary sanctions

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

The case comes down to removal of material cited from secondary, academic sources, followed by long diatribes posted on the talk page which seldom address any particular content, except in their arbitrary conclusion(s). I invite admin to read the whole talk page, but here are some examples:

User:Paul Magnussen:

1. [71] block-delete with edit summary "Removing unreferenced POV material" (which was not unreferenced) supported by the following line of argumentation:
2. Furthermore, the terms "extreme right" and "extreme left" have become so confused and emotionally loaded and to become effectively meaningless.
3. 'Right' (in this sense) is a POV term, now reduced to little more than a term of abuse
4. his politics are irrelevant as what he had for breakfast
5. I haven't noticed you leaping up and down about Leon Kamin or Stephen Jay Gould, whose politics apparently did dictate their science…
6. Supposing that your characterisation of these publications is correct and that Prof. Eysenck did actually write for them (as opposed to allowing publication of previously-written material), have you considered the possibility that he would write for anyone who paid his fee? Apparently not.
7. What would you say the are characteristics of the Extreme Right? Beating up the opposition, refusing to allow them to speak, threatening their children?
8. His scientific views are not in dispute. All that's been produced on his political views is name-calling and unsupported inference.
9. calling anyone "right-wing" is POV ipso facto.
10. You said (above) that we don't define terms. Could you tell me where to find the definitions we're using for "far right" and/or "extreme right"? They seem to me to be weasel words — specifically, just vague terms of abuse.
11. [72] Another removal of content, presumably explained by:
12. 6Kb of text. Apparently, the argument is that although Eysenck has written several books about the genetics-intelligence link, we can't exemplify or discuss their content in his biography, even when secondary sources do that. Go figure. This long post also appears to be written with the intent to support the deletion of material performed by Sirswindon in diff #8 below.

User:Sirswindon:

1. [73] Deletion of material based on secondary sources as "hearsay"
2. [74] repeat
3. [75] claims the ref fails WP:V Text in original (German) is "In der April-Ausgabe der rechtsextremen Nationalzeitung von 1990 schreibt Eysenck einen Artikel, in dem er Sigmund Freud der Verschlagenheit und mangelnder Aufrichtigkeit zeiht, wobei zugleich auf Freuds jüdische Herkunft verwiesen wird."
4. [76] Pure denialism or more sophistry? You decide. Perhaps the author-publisher relationship is not a relationship.
5. [77] Appeals to Wikipedia definition of right-wing, just like the SPA InigmaMan (see its own section below).
6. [78] False dichotomy: "All or None".
7. [79] Advances his own prophecy.
8. [80] Deletes content claiming it's not in the source. Quote given here. Offered chance to self-revert there too. Not taken insofar.

User:InigmaMan (a WP:SPA):

1. [81] "Eysenck did not publish articles, the newspaper published them"
2. [82] Red herring. The article at the time did no say Eysenck was Far-right. It said "He wrote the preface to the book "Das unvergängliche Erbe" by Pierre Krebs, a far-right French writer, which was published by Krebs' Thule-Seminar.[32]"
3. [83] Quotes the Wikipedia article on far-right as an WP:OR argument to disprove what the sources said.
4. [84] Continues the same argument.

-- Tijfo098 (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

And Sirswindon continues:

1. [85] deletes the passage again
2. [86] explained by my IQ somehow?

-- Tijfo098 (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Paul Magnussen, Sirswindon, and InigmaMan

Statement by Paul Magnussen, Sirswindon, and InigmaMan

Paul Magnussen

Not much to add. I'm fairly familiar with Eysenck's work. I've tried to keep the article in line with Wikipedia principles, notably Reliable Sources and no POV material. Distortions of fact and name-calling are (it seems to me) not Reliable.

As secondary objective, I've also tried to keep the article balanced and to an appropriate size.

Of course, I'm not saying I haven't made any mistakes, although I've tried not to. Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should also add that I am not a sock-puppet: this is my real name, and I can provide evidence of this should it be required. Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Question

Please can someone explain why what was put in the article about Freud relates to the subject of this section of the article: In the National Zeitung he reproached Sigmund Freud for alleged trickiness and lack of frankness by reference to Freud's Jewish background. -- Sirswindon (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2012

Comments by others about the request concerning Paul Magnussen, Sirswindon, and InigmaMan

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, Im also involved in this discussion. I'm fully agree with user Tijfo098! If you want an overview about the issue see: here. Please also have a look at this ANI. --WSC ® 10:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC) This appears to be a case of tag teaming to remove properly sourced material from the biography of Eysenck for spurious reasons. Mathsci (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC) (A second apparently unrelated group of editors (YvelinesFrance, Zeromus1 and The Devil's Advocate) appears to be tag teaming on Talk:Race and intelligence. Similar issues of meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry apply there. The first two named accounts seem to have resonances with previously site-banned or topic-banned editors.) YvelinesFrance, Zeromus1 appear to me to be the same editor (and if I'm not mistaken, when this possibility was raised on the Race and Intelligence talk page the response was the standard "why are you asking this, let's argue about other stuff instead", rather than a denial. There was another account with similar interests around but there's so many sock puppets on this article and topic area that I've gotten lost and I'm too lazy right now to go digging again. Volunteer Marek  05:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC) What completely spurious claims. Volunteer Marek accuses of sock-puppetry anyone who doesn't think the exact same way he does. YvelinesFrance (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Math, please do not accuse me of tag-teaming or meat-puppetry unless you can provide strong evidence for such a claim.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC) The Devil's Advocate should address me as "Mathsci", not by a kindergarten shortening. His edits do appear to be supporting the tendentious edits of YvelinesFrance. Those edits are as problematic as were those of TrevelyanL85A2, now indefinitely blocked. Here is an example,[87][88] just one amongst many. The Devil's Advocate continues to ignore the advice of senior administrators [89] and arbitrators.[90] He acted as a proxy (sometimes called a "meatpuppet") for the DeviantArt team for close on two months, during which time he was in contact with at least one of them off-wiki. How much has changed? Mathsci (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC) That comment from France was clearly inappropriate, but I am not sure what it has to do with me. I wasn't even aware of that until you mentioned it. As to the other stuff, would you please leave me alone? You keep showing up at noticeboards to go after me and it is becoming quite tiresome. I wasn't even mentioned here until you showed up and this case had nothing to do with the dispute on the race and intelligence article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC) The two sets of events both touch WP:ARBR&I and are similar, which is why they have both been mentioned here. The Devil's Advocate chose to position himself in this particular topic area in July and a large number of his edits were geared to seeking sanctions on me while encouraging and acting as apologist for an attack-only account. In those circumstances it is hard to understand why he is now playing the victim. But, much worse than that, he has chosen to misrepresen my edits in a completely unethical way. A 7 year old child could look through my recent edits and, without guidance from an adult, deduce that I have just undergone major emergency heart surgery. I have not been editing wikipedia. It is time for The Devil's Advocate to take a reality check: he should look at the editing history of YvelinesFrance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and see why there is a general problematic pattern. The same applies to Zeromus1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), starting with his very first edit. Mathsci (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC) I am not sure what you think was misrepresenting your edits. You have been repeatedly showing up at noticeboards to push for action against me and you have been using pretty much the same arguments you are using here, while I only ever suggested that you be admonished for your misconduct in a single discussion about a specific case. Just because health concerns have meant you have not been able to go after me recently does not mean it is a misrepresentation to say you have been doing that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC) The Devil's Advocate has just been told that I am recovering from major open heart surgery. Despite that, he is still attempting to suggest something completely different, another of his grotesque conpiracy theories, in direct contradiction with my unfortunate real life circumstances. He is editing unethically as part of some kind of morbid WP:GAME. Captain Occam was site-banned for trying to cast doubt on the serious medical condition of Orangemarlin. The Devil's Advocate is doing the same with me and I would not be surprised if he also finds himself indefinitely site-banned as a consequence. His record in WP:ARBR&I has been appalling (harassment, enabling of site-banned and topic-banned users, wikilawyering with arbitrators). With these wholly unethical suggestions, he has now crossed a line, whether his editing was the original cause of this report or not. Mathsci (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC) What on earth are you talking about? I don't see how you could reasonably interpret my comments that way.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC) This whole things smacks of an attempt to silence disagreeable users. It's funny that when the other side of the debate 'tag teams' nothing is claimed, however when a few editors with contrarian opinions appear, suddenly it's a conspiracy. Hopefully this is thrown out. Completely meritless. YvelinesFrance (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Because that's how this topic area has been for a long time now. As soon as one set of sock/meat puppets gets banned, the users involved just turn around and create another set. And over and over and over again. I notice you're not even bothering to deny your connections to Zeromus1 (or whatever other accounts there might be). Volunteer Marek  23:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC) It's a completely unfounded claim with no evidence. There is no reason for me to even refute such ad hominem attacks. YvelinesFrance (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC) At any rate, that is a question for SPI, not AE.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a question of neat sourceswork. First the sources been doubt. Some of the sources I presented were in german. It's okay for me to doubt them. But they don't even doubted the german sources. They claimed all sources estimated Eysenck as far-right supporter, and there are several sources how do that, are not reliable. A reproach beyond good and evil. When other authors supported the sources they begin to downplay the statements of the sources. The peak of this activities was to change the heading from "Alleged relationships with far right groups" to "Relationship with right-wing groups". A description was not supported by only one single source. The argumentation is nothing but sophistry. If you really want to understand theirs procedure, you have to read the hole talk-page. It begins with the blanket denying of ALL sources to admire in archive of the talk-page. And ends with the downplaying of statements of these and other sources.

My favorite counterargument is: "I personally knew Eysenck for over 40 years," (but never take notic that he supported far-right groups), by user sirswindon.

The several sources make a clear statement about Eysenck and the far-right. Of course you can dabate specific statements in the text of the article. But you can't debate the essence of the sources. That's the point a POV-War begins and the balance of our article is endangered. Especially in this issue (race & intelligence).

Of course it's possible to have a debatte for the next years till one side showes signs of fatigue or give up. But it would be better to have a serious discussion about facts and not about (I personally know Eysenck for 40 y. and I know better than those socialist sources) fiction. It's possible to have a sources-based discussion. If anybody wants to. --WSC ^® 06:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Appeal against thread hijacking. I understand there is a dispute on another R&I article, but it doesn't seem to (currently) involve any of the editors involved in the Eysenck article (unless someone has discovered who InigmaMan is, but I haven't seen that above). I suggest that a different report be filed about the YvelinesFrance, Zeromus1 and The Devil's Advocate issue. Thanks. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems fair enough. The Devil's Advocate did not like my parenthetic remark. Mathsci (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Paul Magnussen, Sirswindon, and InigmaMan

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

• At the moment I don't see anything that AE should do. InigmaMan is an SPA and might be a sock, but has not edited Wikipedia since 2 October. On 15 October there was almost an edit war between Tjfo098 and Sirswindon regarding inclusion of a quote from Barnett, but that now seems to have quiesced. I was expecting to see a terrible article that was full of charges and countercharges, given the tendency of R&I matters to unhinge people's judgment. But now that I actually look at the Hans Eysenck article I feel it is reasonably balanced. It gives a fair hearing to some views of Eysenck that appear to be out of the mainstream. I suggest that this AE request be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Is there an SPI report? T. Canens (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm withdrawing my opinion that InigmaMan could be a sock, after reviewing his contributions. The net effect of InigmaMan seemed to be to make the article slightly more balanced. Our readers can still make up their own minds whether to condemn Eysenck for the company that he kept. It's not unheard of for someone to be so convinced of their own rectitude that they don't care how something looks to others. (E.g. Eysenck secretly taking funds from tobacco companies: "As long as somebody pays for the research I don't care who it is.") Those who believe that Eysenck held far-right political views would be on safer ground if they can quote him expressing such views. His strong opposition to Nazism is hard to reconcile with some of the criticism. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Zeromus1 & The Devil's Advocate

User making enforcement request

• Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Users against whom sanctions are being requested

• Zeromus1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

recently enacted WP:ARBR&I motion concerning enabling edits by banned editors ([91]) as well as the remedies of the recent review that refer to TrevelyanL85A2

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

1. [92] Trolling IP socks of Echigo mole blocked at WP:SPI
2. [93] The Devil's Advocate declares people should chat to TrevelyanL85A2
3. [94] Zeromus1's reaction to Echigo mole's trolling
4. [95] Zeromus1 decides he can enable the trolling even after being told it's a malicious wikihounder and that I am recovering from open heart surgery
5. [96] Zeromus1 refers to Echigo mole as "someone commenting in his user talk space" knowing full well this is the banned editor Echigo mole. He invites The Devil's Advocate to join him in an RfC/U on me. He knows I am acutely ill.
6. [97] The Devil's Advocate himself threatens to open an RfC/U on me on behalf of the AE banned editor TrevelyanL85A2, having received an email from TrevelyanL85A2 requesting that he do so following TrevelyanL85A2's block.

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

1. [98] One of several warnings to Zeromus1
2. The Devil's Advocate has been warned on multiple occasions by arbitrators and senior adminitrstaors about his conduct vis-a-vis TrevelyanL85A2 and Echigo mole. He has ignored all those warnings. Here is a latest example from User talk:MastCell.[99]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The Devil's Advocate is unwisely tinkering around in WP:ARBR&I while continuing to keep alive the disruptive and time-wasting campaign to "get at me" of the DeviantArt group: that runs counter to all arbcom's recent decisions. Zeromus1, a newly created SPA, should not act upon the trolling suggestions of Echigo mole—a community banned wikihounder whose disruptive conduct has already resulted in one arbcom motion—as if they came from a third party editor in good standing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Devil's Advocate has created screeds of problematic edits on the arbcom amendment and clarification page. He has acted as a proxy editor for TrevelyanL85A2 despite multiple warnings from arbitrators and administrators, which he has obstinately ignored,. His edits have essentially involved harassing me in an irrational and persistent way. He has applied his own wild and untenable conspiracy theories to me in place of existing wikipedia policy. He has suggested starting a bogus RfC/U involving me on behalf of the AE banned editor TrevelyanL85A2, after receieving an email from him. He has encouraged other editors to consort with TrevelyanL85A2 against wikipedia policy. Zeromus1 received a trolling email today from an IP sock of Echigo mole. After gradually working out who was the perpetrator, I scored through Echigo mole's trolling edits. Zeromus1 is not a new user as his first edit indicates and he has not yet given any coherent account of why he has gravitated towards WP:ARBR&I. Having read the mischievous trolling of Echigo mole on his talk page, he decided to act on it and, with barely two months of editing under his belt and aware that I am recovering from open heart surgery, decided to enable the wikhounder by subjecting me to an RfC/U. Apart from enabling Echigo mole's trolling and further endangering my health. he has given no coherent reason why he should act on behalf of the troll, who is malicious and dishonest. The arbitration committee has recently been shown an anonymous email sent throught the wikipedia email system which has equally malicious content. It is unclear of the connection between these events. The motion concering Echigo mole and other banned editors was put forward to stop editors causing needless distress and playing silly games. Please could the discretionary sanctions now be put into force? There has been a history of deception amongst supposedly "new" accounts. Boothello claimed his interest in R&I resulted from doing an undergraduate course in psychology. That story was accidentally spoiled when Boothello included the IRC identifier "ixerin" of Ferahgo the Assassin in one of his posts. Similarly Yfever was apparently styled as an editor from New Zealand, hence interested in James R. Flynn and hence R&I. Yfever, however, has edited logged off from a Californian IP. Zerosum1's first edit was to give Yfever advice on a deleted fork article. Zerosum1's wish to start an RfC/U on me because of Echigo mole's suggestion is completely within the modus operandi of the DeviantArt crowd. After all SightWatcher, presumably aided by Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin, prepared a splendid RfC/U on WeijiBaikeBianje which had the required effect. Why not try the same out on Mathsci? Never mind any issues of health or ethics, when there is a score to settle. That was also the message in the "poison pen" wikipedia email I received, that was immediately forwarded to arbcom-l. The Devil's Advocate is a poor wikilawyer. He has already wasted copious amounts of time with statements promoting his own offensive and madcap conspiracy theories. These have been a thin cover for sustained but baseless attacks on me, which started in July 2012 with extraordinary statements of support on wikipediocracy for Captain Occam and his team of helpers. It is no different here. While not restoring the comments of the sock troll Echiigo mole, Zeromus1 has treated them as if they had been made by a third party editor in good standing, not by a pernicious sock troll, as is the case. Zeromus1 has proposed an RfC/U which is not only unwarranted but malicious: it is cycnical disruption proposed by two banned editors (Echigo mole and TrvelyanL85A2). There is little doubt in my mind that Zeromus1's editing history, which in particular includes stalking of my edits to WikiProject Cities, marks him out as some form of sockpuppet. The same seems to be true of YvelinesFrance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who as mentioned in the previous report, has extreme views within WP:ARBR&I that were most offensively expressed on User talk:Roscelese.[100][101][102][103] The Devil's Advocate has been uncircumspect about the editing history of both these accounts. Instead he has chosen to align himself in a WP:TAG TEAM with them on Talk:Race and intelligence. Tag teaming and proxy editing have been examined in both the original case and the review. If The Devil's Advocate misinterprets those findings (as he done consistently with the motion), that is his own affair. Similarly enabling a creepy and malicious wikistalker (Echigo mole) or encouraging others to act as proxies for an AE banned editor (TrevelyanL85A2) are both flagrant attempts to find loopholes in the remedies to the original case, the review and the subsequent motion. Despite The Devil's Advocate glorification of TrevelyanL85A2 as some kind of martyr, TrevelyanL85A2's edits prior to his block showed that his editing had degenerated to that of an attack-only account, determined to exploit every possible loophole to make mischief. (This is certainly not the first website from which TrevelyanL85A2 has been banned for inappropriate conduct.) As far as editing topics within WP:ARBR&I is concerned, WP:NOTHERE applies to both Zeromus1 and The Devil's Advocate. Aside from unresolved issues of sockpuppetry, both have attempted to harass me without reason whilst both being completely aware that I am in an acute medical condition. Zeromus1 has done so as a proxy/enabler for a community banned wikihounder (Echigo mole) and The Devil's Advocate as a proxy for an AE banned disruption-only account (TrevelyanL85A2). Neither has been editing in good faith. Encouraging others to open discussions with TrevelyanL85A2 off-wiki deserves a block of at least one month for The Devil's Advocate. Since he has shown no signs of self-doubt in acting as TrevelyanL85A2's defense counsel (to use MastCell's phrase), I would suggest that it is wholly appropriate that he inherit the same extended topic ban as TrevelyanL8A2 from WP:ARBR&I for an indefinite period. He has wasted large amounts of time litigating against me on behalf of TrevelyanL85A2, contrary to the stated aims of the review. As for Zeromus1, his attempt to gloss over Echigo mole's profile as a community banned wikihounder and proceed to follow his trolling advice to create a process to place someone recovering from cardio-vascular surgery under undue stress is impossible for me to understand. It's unethical editing run crazy. Why is Zeromus1 enabling a community banned editor when he's pefectly aware of the detailed motion? The motion was not just about reverting edits but about preventing other editors from enabling and magnifying the attempted disruption and mischief-making of Echigo mole. Zeromus1 did not restore the edits but neverthless acted upon the trolling advice as if offered by an independent third party in good standing, rather than mendacious trolling from a community banned sock troll. Zeromus1 is not editing in good faith: with his miniscule amount of editing experience (only 122 edits of which 63 to articles), why is he even suggesting starting an RfC/U on an editor in good standing but extremely poor health? Why is he in denial about Echigo mole? I am not concerned that wikipedia is affecting my health. However, I find the unethical editing of both Zeromus1 and The Devil's Advocate chilling. Banned editors are listened to more than arbitrators in their topsy-turvy world.

Comment TDA has claimed that TrevelyanL85A2's arbcom sanctions and his AE block are due to me rather than the conduct of TrevelyanL85A2 himself. [104][105] 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)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[106][107]

Discussion concerning Zeromus1 & The Devil's Advocate

Statement by Zeromus1

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

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)

Mathsci you initiated all this recent discussion by going after me in an unrelated AE case directly above this one. You mentioned Zeromus there as well, so there is nothing inexplicable about this situation. All I did was rebut your accusations and ask you to stop hounding me.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:05, 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)

NW, I don't think anyone at the talk page for R&I will seriously suggest that my participation there has been disruptive and, in fact, we have been gradually working towards consensus on contentious wording. Mathsci is just going after me for the same old stuff he has been going after me for since I objected to his conduct towards Trevelyanl and suggested that he be admonished for it, not sanctioned as he says. No one gave his objections much attention despite him leaving a long screed about me on the request for amendment that I essentially ignored, going after me in three separate AE cases before this one, a completely unrelated WQA, and a BLPN discussion he initiated about another completely unrelated article that was again not taken seriously by any editor. For the past few weeks, following the request for amendment, I have completely left Mathsci alone and barely thought of the man. I only got sucked back into a dispute with Mathsci now because he tried to hijack an AE thread directly above to go after me, see the collapsed section in that request.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:51, 18 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)

Are you guys really not seeing what Mathsci is doing? He pops up all of a sudden, weeks after we last interacted, to accuse me of tag-teaming and meat-puppetry in some parenthetical remark on another AE case that had nothing to with me because I somewhat agreed with a position some other editors took on a completely different article than the one being discussed at AE. When I asked him not to accuse me of such things without evidence he starts rambling about Trev and acting as if I should somehow know that one of the editors in the discussion said offensive things to some other person on some other matter. After I asked him to leave me alone and stop following me he retorts by repeating those claims, then claiming that I sought sanctions against him, when I did no such thing, and claiming I "misrepresented" his edits. After I challenged him on this claim of misrepresentation he made the bizarre accusation that I somehow was casting doubt on his health issues, when, again, I did no such thing. If you guys can honestly look over that discussion and conclude that I am provoking or harassing Mathsci, rather than the other way around, then I guess there is nothing I can do to convince any of you. He is just repeating the same attacks and claims that he made throughout the request for amendment and none of the Arbs or admins apparently saw any basis for taking action against me then, so I don't see how you can justify going after me over those same issues now.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:31, 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)

Mathsci, you clearly know about all the notifications made by that IP, so why did you only choose to remove the comment on Cla68's page?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

This is ridiculous. When Mathsci removes a harmless remark from may user talk page, which is against policy, then something needs to be done. Admins, if you're going to block The Devil's Advocate, then you need to block Mathsci also. His behavior has been as battleground as I've ever seen. Cla68 (talk) 09:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, no, not gonna happen. The whole point of all of this is exactly the confirmation of the principle that banned users' postings can and should be removed, no matter by whom, and that these removals should not be interfered with. This is what the committee has explicitly reaffirmed with its latest motion that we are asked to enforce here. That principle also includes user talk pages, and it applies to all such edits no matter how superficially "harmless" they may appear. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Give me a break. I have never had anyone remove a non-vandalism comment from my talk page in six years of participating in Wikipedia, and plenty of banned editors have apparently commented as IPs on my talk page. You know why? Because most editors know not to take this stuff too personally. When they do, and start removing harmless comments from other users talkpages, it's the definition of BATTLEGROUND. Cla68 (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The "harmless remark" Cla68 is referring to is one of a series of edits by three illegal tor nodes all operated by Echigo mole. Each of them has been blocked for 3 years. There have been two SPI reports on these tor nodes, one by me on October 16, when the first two were blocked, and the latest on October 20 by another editor. Because of the similarity in content and in tor nodes, the edits were all clearly made by the same person. One was a trolling and malicious rant, typical of Echigo mole: the other edits have to be seen within that context. The sockmaster is not an "innocent wikipedian", but a community banned wikihounder. The arbitration committee passed a motion about exactly these types of edits in this precise context, clarifying what WP:BAN means. By clicking on the link provided, Cla68 can read full details of that motion and refresh his memory.[108] Mathsci (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci, if that's the case, why didn't you wait for an admin to remove the remark, and here it is for the admins here to read and judge how harmful it is to Wikipedia, instead of removing it yourself? Seeking out a banned editor around people's user talk pages on Wikipedia, especially when the remarks are innocuous, is BATTLEGROUND behavior if I've ever seen it. Have you considered that you might be taking this stuff a little too personally and perhaps should step away from the topic for awhile? Cla68 (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read the motion again. Anybody can remove the edits and me in particular. As Roger Davies has patiently explained to you, Echigo mole has been wikihounding me in a malicious way for a prolonged period. Even if that is hard for you to understand, could you nevertheless please move on? Oh and please could you stop shouting "BATTLEGROUND"? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci, I have been wikihounded before, and the way I handled it was by ignoring the guy. Banned editors post to WP as IPs all the time and are usually ignored if their edits are harmless, as in this case. I think the reason you are following this guy around and removing his edits, including by the extreme measure of removing them from other users talk pages, is because you want to win the battle. That's BATTLEGROUND defined. Cla68 (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately your own experiences, fascinating as they doubtless must be, are irrelevant here. Your wikihounder was not the principal community banned user Echigo mole for whom this motion was tailor-made. You've already had crystal-clear responses from FPaS and Roger Davies, which you have chosen to ignore. Again could you please stop shouting "BATTELFIELD"? It doesn't apply here and could result in you receiving a logged WP:ARBR&I warning as happened to Collect some weeks back under similar circumstances (another user nursing a grudge). Other socks of Echigo mole have been reverted in the meantime, e.g. by me on this page [109] and by FPaS elsewhere.[110] Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

To clarify one thing: Mathsci, I'd actually grant Cla68 one point; removing such posts might not be the wisest thing to do on your part, in your own interest. Especially when, as in the case of a one-off notification post on a user talk page, the removal is of purely symbolic value – the notification has been given; for better or worse, it's been read by the recipient and can't be un-read, and removing it will often only draw more attention to it. That said, still, Mathsci is totally within his rights if he chooses to remove them, and reacting to such removals with yet more escalation and clamouring for counter-sanctions, as Cla68 did here, is just as inappropriate as restoring the postings would be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Has this IP actually been blocked, and, if so, could someone link to the SPI in which admins came to the decision to do so? Again, this is looking like two individuals (Mathsci and a banned user) using Wikipedia to engage in a battle of wills with each other. Not good. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 has been informed multiple times that the two anonymizing tor nodes have been blocked for 3 years and the open proxy for 6 months. The SPI investigations can be found at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole and its archives.

• 217.115.10.133 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) [tor node]
• 80.237.226.76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) [tor node]
• 211.75.73.36 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) [open proxy]

Cla68's second phrase, "Again, this is looking like two individuals (Mathsci and a banned user) using Wikipedia to engage in a battle of wills with each other" seems a perverse way of discussing a community banned user and a user in good standing. The wikihounding by Echigo mole and his army of socks has been discussed in great detail in several places: during the WP:ARBR&I review; at WP:AN when the community ban was formalized; and during the subsequent amendment/motion archived at WT:ARBR&I. It has been dealt with by arbitrators since 2009, sometimes in private because of outing issues, occasionally involving account names if I remember correctly. At one stage Shell Kinney made a 3 month range block. By failing to recognize the wikihounding, Cla68's malicious commentary becomes a way of enabling Echigo mole within the context of WP:ARBR&I. Cla68 is presumably aware that the arbcom motion prohibits him from making remarks of that sort (suggesting for example that the wikihounding is my fault and I am no better than a community banned user, confirmed liar and serial sockmaster) and that his editing privileges are likely to be restricted if he continues doing so. Cla68 participated in the discussions leading up to the third motion, so is perfectly aware of the context. In any event, Roger Davies explained to him that using my street name in France as a username was one of the many different facets of the wikihounding. Mathsci (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Zeromus1 & The Devil's Advocate

• comment - this exchange between me and Zerosum1 may be interesting [111] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• This request (unfortunately) did not address any article-related edits of YvelinesFrance (some of which are troubling, see this exchange), but I agree that an interaction ban with Mathsci is indeed for the reason given by T. Canens. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• All I can say is that I was baffled by the suggestion from The Devil's Advocate that the distinction between indefinitely blocked players and banned players was important enough to wikilawyer over: "Indefinite blocks are certainly a way to implement a ban, but Trev has not been banned. The restriction also does not prohibit interactions with such editors, only restoring their edits." aprock (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Admins, I think you should examine the behavior of all the parties named in this request. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Zeromus1 & The Devil's Advocate

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

• What I'm seeing is quite a bit of bear poking. I think an interaction ban is needed here. T. Canens (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• This is the second topic area I have seen TDC be disruptive in (first was September 11. I am leaning more towards a block for them. NW (Talk) 06:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Not really opposed to a block, but unless it's indef I'd say that we still need an interaction ban - probably one-way. T. Canens (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'd be somewhat inclined to block TDA as well, still considering it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Dicklyon

Request withdrawn by Apteva per [112]. EdJohnston (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User who is submitting this request for enforcement Apteva (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Withdrawn. Hopefully the incivility and inappropriate posting of off topic messages to WP:MOS talk pages will be recognized and cleaned up. Per talk page guidelines such notices are to be deleted or archived. I deleted and archived to my user talk page, as they were a complaint about my conduct. I ask that anyone reading this liberally delete any off topic sections or responses from Wikipedia talk:MOS, and warn the editor who placed it there. The incivility there is totally inappropriate and needs to stop now. Apteva (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#All parties reminded 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. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 13 October 2012 Section was inappropriately added to the guideline talk page. I deleted it and moved it to my talk page.[113] Another editor restored it onto the guideline talk page.[114] 13 October 2012 Section name was inappropriately added to the talk page. An admin finally closed the thread with the admonition that "This page is for discussing the MOS, not specific users."[115] 16 October 2012 Continuing to revert talk page entries. In this case I had removed comments that were inappropriate with ones that were better, and Dicklyon using an edit summary warning not to delete other's entries, deleted my entry. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Warned on [116] Warned on 4 October 2012 Warned on 16 October 2012 by Apteva (talk · contribs) Additional comments by editor filing complaint User:Dicklyon is no stranger to WP:Point. In this edit[117] 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[118] 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.[119] 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. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 14 October 2012 Discussion concerning Dicklyon Statement by Dicklyon 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 Unfortunately, as a quick scan of WT:MOS will show, unpleasant behaviour is all too common. A culture seems to have grown up in which regular MOS editors react collectively and aggressively to any questioning or challenging of existing guidance which they support. In this specific case: Apteva seems to have been unwilling to debate the issues involved in the guidance in the MOS over the use of hyphens and en-dashes in compound words and to consider carefully the meaning of the relevant parts of the MOS in their context. For example, the full sentence in which there has been a dispute over the addition of "some" is "Hyphenation also occurs in bird names such as Great Black-backed Gull, and in proper names such as Trois-Rivières and Wilkes-Barre." When X occurs in Y there is no necessary implication that it is present in every Y, as Apteva seems to think. His or her posts have, in my view, been somewhat confused and repetitive, so that responding properly to them is time-consuming and to that extent (and that extent only) "disruptive". However, I see no evidence of bad faith on his or her part. It's clear from the talk page that he or she did not initiate the use of aggressive language or respond in kind. The following comments were directly addressed to him or her by editors other than Dicklyon and Neotarf: "That doesn't mean that a small group of tendentious editors can form a "local consensus" at WP:AT to magically sweep away a much larger and longer-lasting community-wide consensus at MOS (despite the fact that you personally are trying to pull of exactly this as we speak ...)"; "while Apteva wages several connected campaigns at several scattered locations. He or she is initiating RM discussions and the like for pointy 'political' purposes, in a most disruptive way". What's needed is for all contributors WT:MOS to assume good faith, not just those editors Apteva mentions here. How to achieve this is another question, to which I don't have an answer. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Yes, it appears to me that Apteva is editing in good faith, and simply doesn't understand the points they're disputing. But many of the diffs Apteva presents show nothing wrong, and some aren't even relevant. — kwami (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Result concerning Dicklyon This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. As I stated in the related request. Please link to the exact remedy you wish enforced and clearly explain what action you want taken. We're not here just for your general complaints.--Tznkai (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC) So far there is nothing here to take action on. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Neotarf

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. User who is submitting this request for enforcement Apteva (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Withdrawn. Hopefully the incivility and inappropriate posting of off topic messages to WP:MOS talk pages will be recognized and cleaned up. Per talk page guidelines such notices are to be deleted or archived. I deleted and archived to my user talk page, as they were a complaint about my conduct. I ask that anyone reading this liberally delete any off topic sections or responses from Wikipedia talk:MOS, and warn the editor who placed it there. The incivility there is totally inappropriate and needs to stop now. Apteva (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Neotarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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[120] should be sufficient. Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#All parties reminded 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. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 13 October 2012 Restored an inappropriate discussion that had been deleted 13 October 2012 Then used this section to accuse another editor of acting inappropriately, instead of at their talk page. 11 October 2012 Our own article on the comet does not capitalize the comet. Why should the MOS? 29 September 2012 The section explained where one should be spelled out and where it should be written as a number, so I gave an example. It was such an obvious need, that it did not need to be discussed. What needed to be discussed though was why Neotarf thought it was not a good example. A question on my user page or on the talk page was warranted before an automatic revert. Neotarf exhibits ownership of the MOS and only likes to use their edits, and does not even like changes to the talk page,[ ] reverting closure of an RFC instead of just moving on. [removed because that particular edit was not done by Neotarf] Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Warned on 12 October 2012 by Apteva (talk · contribs) Warned on 4 October 2012 by Roscelese (talk · contribs) Additional comments by editor filing complaint 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[121] indicates some previous experience with WP. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 14 October 2012 Discussion concerning Neotarf Statement by Neotarf Apteva's theory 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. [122] [123] Accusations 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. [124] --Neotarf (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Neotarf 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) The behavior I am concerned with is using a guideline talk page as ANI or as a user talk page. It was inappropriate for Dicklyon to do it, and what made it appropriate for Neotarf to triple the offense by putting it back? A user should be able to see that since the comments were removed for being off topic they should not be put back. Contentious means that I contend that an error exists. A better word for me than contentious is tenacious. I know that I am right about the Mexican-American War issue, and I will stick to it no matter how long it takes to fix the article so that it is right. But I do not make it a full time job - there are other errors to fix as well. Please do not bring the "other IP" into this conversation. What someone else does is not relevant to this particular issue: Is Neotarf being uncivil? That is the sole question being asked. If the "other IP" has been uncivil, open a case against them and discuss them there. Am I the accuser lily white? Yes. I only use multiple accounts in an appropriate manner, and my user page clearly states that this is not my primary account, this is an alternate account. Occasionally newbies will revert deletions of user warnings from user pages that that user has deleted, but experienced editors know that deleting a warning counts as seeing the warning, and the warning does not need to be restored. Final results of course, like a notice that the account has been indef'd are moot, because the user has already been blocked, and unless they used a sock to delete the notice, thus identifying themself as a possible sock, it is impossible for them to delete it - and if someone else does delete it, then it does get replaced, or whatever is appropriate. I do not know why Neotarf thought it was appropriate to replace the text on the talk page that had been moved to the user page, but they do need to know in no uncertain terms that talk pages are only for discussing the associated subject page, or in the case of a user, the associated subject. Otherwise, talk pages are not for discussing the subject of the article, only the content of the article. And certainly not for discussing the conduct of one editor, but only the conduct of all of the editors who are editing that particular talk page and associated page. That is what the word disruption means - interrupting the flow of discussion to allow a consensus opinion to form. Do I let others answer - not as much as I could, and I have backed off of answering quite as often. So the answer to the question asked by Dicklyon, is that Neotarf is only being accused of incivility and inappropriate use of a talk page, about me and about the IP. Community warnings of bad behavior go at community discussion pages like ANI, and within the first 50 edits, Neotarf participated in an ANI discussion, so I know that they know that they exist. But assuming they just started using a user account in November 2011, and this is not one of a dozen that has been used before, the user is still less than a year later a Newbie and deserves a warning, not a block, in my opinion. User warnings go on user talk pages. In building consensus the rule is to address the issue, not the issuee. Apteva (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Please see my comments above at #Comments by others about the request concerning Dicklyon as they apply to both cases. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Result concerning Neotarf This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. You linked to a "editors reminded" remedy, not anything actionable. For that matter, you did not request an action. Please clarify.--Tznkai (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Wee Curry Monster

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

Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Wee Curry Monster talk 13:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Restrictions on editing Gibraltar articles at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Sanctions

Administrator imposing the sanction

Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[125]

Statement by Wee Curry Monster

This sanction has been in place for over a year, the RFC requested has never happened. User:Imalbornoz and User:Richard Keatinge were simply reverting edits with no real rationale. User:Imalbornoz the subject of the AE complaint has made no substantive edit on wikipedia since. The restriction is moot anyway as during the intervening period other editors have re-added material removed by User:Imalbornoz concerning signficant historical events in Gibraltar. I have a number of articles in my sandpit for over a year that I couldn't publish because of this restriction. I would like this to be lifted please.

Statement by Timotheus Canens

My tentative view is that a trial lifting is probably appropriate. With the benefit of hindsight, we probably should have simply directed the opening of an RFC. T. Canens (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Wee Curry Monster

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

Iadrian yu

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

Request concerning Iadrian yu

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nmate (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Iadrian yu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

[126]

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

1. [127] Explanation: Recently, the user lodged a request for arbitration against me in which I was accused of making personal attacks, battleground behavior, edit warring raised to a level that is amount to having an arbitration case against me, and doing OR. On 16:33, 11 October 2012, It was rejected. Admin EdJohnston said: Don't see anything here. It's hard to view this as a good-faith report.13:07, 11 October 2012

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

1. Warned on 27 August 2010 by Stifle (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Shortly after his frivilous request for arbitration against me had been rejected, Iadrian yu arrived at several articles he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before. It is clear that Iadrian yu follows my edits around and tries to provoke confrontations and edit wars.

See timeline:

• 16:33, 11 October 2012 ("Iadrian yu's request for arbitration against me was rejected")

1. 17:09, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
2. 17:11, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
3. 17:11, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
4. 17:13, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
5. 17:14, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
6. 17:15, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
7. 17:16, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
8. 18:12, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
9. 18:13, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
10. 18:13, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
11. 18:13, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
12. 18:13, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
13. 18:13, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
14. 18:14, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
15. 18:14, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
16. 18:14, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
17. 18:14, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
18. 18:16, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
19. 18:16, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
20. 18:16, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
21. 18:16, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
22. 18:17, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
23. 18:17, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
24. 18:18, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
25. 18:28, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
26. 18:29, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
27. 18:29, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
28. 18:29, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.

After having exhibited a strong opinion on Hungarians [128] , which is compatible with what various right wing organizations claim in Romania like Noua Dreaptă, I felt the need to report Iadrian yu to WP AE in 2010. It did not result in him being sanctioned, because it requires a preliminary notice of Digwuren upon which the sanction is based. Instead, the administrators decided to deliver him an ‎AE warning on his talk page.

Being worried about saddling himself with longer blocks, he learned from the lesson afterwards: it isn't wise to reveal his opinion on Hungarians in Wikipedia. However, Iadrian yu meanwhile became increasingly busy shopping for blocks against my person. The user makes friviluous reports against me using the latest edits of mine with outright false misrepresentations and the diffs simply can't support what he claims they show which indicates a general battleground attitude on his part. Shortly after his frivilous request for AE against me had been rejected, Iadrian yu again began following me to articles he had never edited before solely to revert my edits. In light of this, I do not think that it is a content dispute which is possible to resolve over talk page discussions.

I think that accusing anybody of battleground behaviour, making personal attacks and disruptive editing in a request for arbitration without any evidence really falls under WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND (See: 16:33, 11 October 2012). Shortly after his frivilous request for arbitration against me had been rejected, this user tried to provoke confrontations and edit wars by following me to 28 articles he had never edited before. I think that this pattern of behavior constitutes WP:HARASSMENT.

To Iadrian yu

it is a plain nonsense. What does it mean "Nmate resumed our dispute"? It was Iadrian yu who filled a frivilous RFA against me; most of the diffs he presented in the report did not even concern him any way. Shortly after his frivilous RFA had been closed, Iadrian yu followed me to 28 articles he had never edited before to partially revert me. It is hardly possible to take as a content dispute. In his frivilous RFA, Iadrian yu accused me of various things without any evidence that falls under WP:NPA and WP:HARASSMENT.

Then I reverted a message of Iadrian yu posted on User:Koertefa's talk page because it concerned me in a highly insulting way:
Don`t get this the wrong way but I am just curious. Did you checked the diffs I provided? And you see nothing wrong there with the behavior of this particular user? per ad hominem.

After that Iadrian yu tricked administrator The Blade of the Northern Lights into thinking that I am also worth my salt. [129] To which The Blade of the Northern Lights answered that "He's allowed to remove messages from his own talkpage, but not other people, and I agree that edit summary wasn't helpful; I'll leave a note."
Afterwards The Blade of the Northern Lights left a note on my tlak page that "While I appreciate your frustration with Iadrian yu, stuff like this isn't going to help you much"[130].

Well, Iadrian yu meanwhile followed me to 28 articles he had never edited before to partially revert me, and continued harassing me shortly after his frivilous request for AE against me had been rejected. It gives an interesting zest to referring to WP:LETGO.

"As per WP:LETGO I did`t edited any articles by Nmate and stand clear of any future problems". As of when? Because Iadrian yu followed me to 28 articles he had never edited before to partially revert me, shortly after his frivilous request for AE against me had been rejected.

"I hardly can imagine that Nmate's accusation for removing the words "In the 9th century, the territory of [settlement x] became part of the Kingdom of Hungary." was done in good faith." -this sentence is woefully ungrammatical btw- Iadrian yu followed me to 28 articles he had never edited before to partially revert me, shortly after his frivilous request for AE against me had been rejected. Now Iadrian yu is saying that it was done in good faith, and he can hardly imaginge it to be taken otherwise on my part....referring to even WP:LETGO.. seriously? How is it possible this? Does this indicate a normal way of thinking?

My "strong" opinions are represented by Nmate is introduction of the 168 as a violation. I don`t see any problem introduction historical events [169], but Nmate does. I admit that my edit summary was not the best.. but after all that was from 2 years ago!

It is obvious that the edit summry is objectionable here. See:

[131]("Reverted 1 edit by Rokarudi; Unification of Transilvania with Romania is a fact not a POV. Because Hungarian ultra-nationalists claim Transilvania we can`t mention facts?")

The diff is more than 2 years old. However, it is a rather xenophobe viewpoint aimed at Hungarians; it is something that comes instincively. Iadrian yu likes editing Wikipedia along with Hungarian user of whose favourite subject is history while his approach to Hungarians is xenophobe. After I had reported Iadrian yu for this xenophobe edit summary, he gave up on expressing his frank opinion on Hungarians while at the same time he developed an interest for shopping for blocks for me owing to the fact that Iadrian yu is a rather vindictive user as well.

His latest attempt at shopping for a block for me happened on 16:33, 11 October 2012. Considering that Iadrian yu has a more than 2 year old history of shopping for blocks for me, invoking WP:LETGO takes some chutzpah on his part. In addition, it happened shortly after his latest frivilous RFA against me had been closed ,and then followed me to 28 articles he had never edited before to partially revert me. And he thinks that it was a good faith act on his part. Huh? How is it possible this?

To Iadrian yu and Omen1229

There is no point in continuing this discussion because ,as usual, Iadrian yu fiddles with the diffs in a deceptive way; no resason to respond to his further diffs because the discussion could become mazy that is difficult to look over.

I would advise Omen1229 to learn some more English, because his sentences are borderline unreadable. As for "when the Kingdom of Hungary was established", there was a short intermittent period; in fact, it belonged to Hungary at that time, which is true. Interesting enough that Omen1229 can't write in correct English grammar, yet he keeps accusing all the Hungarian users of battleground behaviour. Because I am not the only person who is accused of battleground behaviour by Omen1229. He appears to think that this type of tactic may pay off.

In conclude

I feel it may be a time that a restriction from following me around on Wikipedia be imposed upon Iadrian yu. Because saying that he acts toward me in good faith is not credible i.e. making corrections regarding my edits shortly after his RFA against me was rejected. And even on the same day, Iadrian yu came to the decision to stay away from me to obviate the possibility of the occurance of any problems in the future after following me to yet another 28 articles he had never edited before.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[132]

Discussion concerning Iadrian yu

Statement by Iadrian yu

I believe this report is regarding with my previous[133], but anyway...

After this [134], and this I have considered this finished. Unfortunately, Nmate resumed our dispute (first he illegally deleted a comment of mine, being immediately informed for this by an admin) and then filed this report.

As per WP:LETGO I did`t edited any articles by Nmate and stand clear of any future problems (as per my recent contributions) but Nmate has written this comment [135]] considering me as an "anti-Hungarian" editor and more, while I don`t any problems with other Hungarian editors (I have a good cooperation with several Hungarian editors actually) - while he accuses me of belonging to the some organization "Noua Dreaptă"?? By his reasoning does he(Nmate) belongs to the Sixty-Four Counties Youth Movement? Even after this, I did`t engaged in any contact with Nmate. Now this report based on his introduction of original research (Kingdom of Hungary, 9th century[136], but it existed only after 1000 year) by him and my edits reverting that data. Also reverting one edit is hardly an edit war or anything similar. Other editors expressed their opinion too that this is OR ([137], [138], [139],[140]) and in my previous report where I was warned for misusing this board [141].

My "strong" opinions are represented by Nmate is introduction of the [[142]] as a violation. I don`t see any problem introduction historical events [143], but Nmate does. I admit that my edit summary was not the best.. but after all that was from 2 years ago! Reverting original research I don`t see as harassment, and he yet reintroduced a bunch of original research introduced by him??? Based on what [144]? Reading the main and only accusation Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before. - does this mean that I am not allowed to edit articles I never did before? I hardly can imagine that Nmate's accusation for removing the words "In the 9th century, the territory of [settlement x] became part of the Kingdom of Hungary." was done in good faith. Nmate is a Hungarian editor whose preoccupation is the history of his country and I don't think he is not aware of the fact that the Kingdom of Hungary was founded in year 1000 (sources: [145] [146]}).

After all this I just want to WP:LETGO and continue with my work on wikipedia. I believe my contributions prove that. If there is original research I would remove it, and there is no need to write a report for that. Adrian (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Yes, you continued our dispute, and there are diffs to prove it in my starting comment. I filled a report against you, and there is no secret about that. I was warned for misusing this board. After this I stayed away from you. If you are answering my statement, please read it carefully.
2. I did`t "followed" you, I have noticed a couple of weeks ago the problem of your original research but I have left to see if you would correct it, because you are familiar with the fact that your data is incorrect. Also I can notice that you reverted many of then for no apparent reason? May I know why? Since your edit summary is empty... Even in my report you did`t missed the change the accuse me of some things and now based on some reverts you are saying I harass you...I believe that is plain nonsense.
3. You reverted my message because it was insulting? This was insulting? I am sorry but this is in no way Ad hominem, and if you consider it was you have a board for personal attacks, not as a result writing an edit summary that is truly Ad hominem (Undid revision 517167974 by Iadrian yu (talk) trolling by a highly disruptive user). I guess this comments introduced by you are not insulting (1, 2, 3, Hello you smartass or rather doofus/dummy 4, 5, 6) ? Or this comment where you called me a lot of things based on absolutely nothing where his contributions almost always appear to be aimed at removing Hungarian-related content, or modifying content to be more anti-Hungarian. , The reason why Iadrian yu requested for arbitration against me was that Iadrian yu thinks that the anti-Hungarian side may loose of their turf after Samofi's talk page access was revoked - ??? anti-Hungarian side? lose turf? I was not aware that this was a war.... But all this was not Ad hominem and my comment here [147] was???
4. I tricked an admin? By asking what I did wrong in my report? By informing of your edit summary and that you deleted my comment on other users page? No comment on this because the words speak for themselves, how are you interpreting them is against their meaning.
5. As I said before, removing original research is not harassment. Also an uninvolved editor expressed his opinion on this [148] and he did`t saw anything wrong.
6. I will repeat, I hardly can imagine that Nmate's accusation for removing the words "In the 9th century, the territory of [settlement x] became part of the Kingdom of Hungary." was done in good faith. Nmate is a Hungarian editor whose preoccupation is the history of his country and I don't think he is not aware of the fact that the Kingdom of Hungary was founded in year 1000 (sources: [149] [150]}). And yet you reverted some of this edits and filed a report here based on them...Adrian (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

NPA

My edit summary was from 2 years ago, and as such I don`t see it relevance to present-day discussions. Introducing a 2 year ago diff is not block-shopping? Talking about old diffs, I don`t want to "dig", but you had a lot of problematic statements (ex:[151], [152], [153]) - looks like you accuse every user of wikistalking? Just because some editor did`t edited that article before?. Saying what I said then is wrong but surely not xenophobic. And that statement was not introduced against a specific user, from my comment it is clear I refer to one specific group (Hungarian ultra-nationalists) and not personally you, or this user. Again I know now that this kind of comments are disruptive and as you noticed also, I did`t used that kind of tone with anyone in recent time(1 year+). I see that after calling me an anti-Hungarian editor you went a step further and labeled me as a xenophobic user. At this point, you talking about block-shopping is really strange. I don`t wish to comment further on this kind of WP:NPA on me. If you wish to talk about the problem you represented on this report, I will respond on that only. Adrian (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I expected a response to my previous answer, number 3 actually and number 6? Adrian (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to "To Iadrian yu and Omen1229" and "In conclude"

1. As I said before,After this I stayed away from you. If you are answering my statement, please read it carefully. If you check the time stamps you can notice.
2. It is clear that you are continuing with your introduction of WP:OR and yet you did`t said the reason of your reverts?
3. Again, as I said before, removing original research is not harassment. An uninvolved editor expressed his opinion on this [154] and he did`t saw anything wrong.
4. As for the accusation that I am flowing you, per WP:HOUND - Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. - I have corrected your introduction of invalid data(OR). About your claims of harassment Threatening another person is considered harassment. This includes threats to harm another person, to disrupt their work on Wikipedia, or to otherwise harm them. Statements of intent to properly use normal Wikipedia processes, such as dispute resolution, are not threats. - I did`t threat you in any way with my comments or contributions.
5. After all this I just want to WP:LETGO and continue with my work on wikipedia. I believe my contributions prove that. If there is original research I would remove it, and there is no need to write a report for that.
6. I am confused, just because I (or anybody else) did`t edited that article before that means I am not able to do so in the future? Do you WP:OWN this articles? So nobody new is allowed to edit them?

Adrian (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

I am really interested why User:Nmate avoids to give an answer why is he continuing with the introduction of WP:OR and yet did`t said the reason of his reverts? This is the base for this report after all. As he said, 28 of them.

• If I or anybody else correct this data again, does this mean there will be a new report as some sort of "harassment" against this user?
• Or another accusation of wikistalking [155]?
• Or engage in an edit war?
• Or a label to whomever disagree`s with his as an "anti-Hungarian" editor who fight for "terf" [156] and is xenophobe [157] ? Adrian (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to User:Tijfo098

I actually try to stay away from this user because of his attitude, he actually labeled me. When I stumbled on 3 articles with the same problematic data introduced by Nmate, after a couple of minutes I noticed that this is introduced on a lot more articles. I don`t believe this is wikihounding since I did`t interfere to create problems nor to disrupt this user in any way. Per WP:HOUND - Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. - I did exactly this. As far as I can see, everybody agrees that data "In the 9th century, the territory of [settlement x] became part of the Kingdom of Hungary." is false (OR). Adrian (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to User:Fakirbakir

I agree. Nmate inserted Kingdom of Hungary. As such you can see why I see this statement problematic. Even the Principality of Hungary was not active in the 9th century. If the data were valid, with sources, I have nothing against the inclusion of it. Since the earliest data about the Principality of Hungary is circa year 900, I have nothing against of adding something like "Around the year 900 (since it is circa, we can`t know for sure if it is 9 or 10 century) the territory of [settlement x] became part of the Principality of Hungary. - sounds more realistic, but is still requires a source per wiki policies. Because at least we have some indications that this is very possible. I discussed this also with another editor and it seems this would be fine by him too[158]. What Nmate did is clearly WP:OR. Adrian (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to the proposed sanction

I think this would be a bad idea, for both of us.

The warning I received in 2010 for AE is not a usual one [159] I misbehaved but I at least I had valid reasons [160]. The admin could`t retract the warning but had more understanding after seeing this diffs.

After all, this is what User:Nmate wanted from the start of all this [161]. All editors who expressed their opinion here agreed that I was right in removing the statement about Hungary in 9th century, so I don't understand why I am blamed for it with an indefinite ban for some topics. I don`t see why I have to have any restriction because of the unconventional behavior of this user? All this could be avoided if he would just talk and not used blind reverts.

• (My proposal) -I did`t wrote a any kind of report in a while, while I can`t say this for Nmate. Maybe we(both users) could be restricted for filing reports against each-other and if a serious problem arises in the future to be solved with contacting an admin on the talk page.

I don`t have any problems with any other user(in particular with Hungarian users on Hungary-related articles). He have written this report based on content dispute, not me, as such I don`t see fair for introducing any restriction to me. I was warned for misusing this board a couple of days ago, but after comments he used, and the type of language he showed here, I thought that was unacceptable. As I stayed away from Nmate all this time, I will in the future too, but when I see a clear violation like it is presented in this case I would correct it.Adrian (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise - I don`t understand how my behavior is more tendentious. Please check this: [162] and [163]. Adrian (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to User:CoolKoon

I can understand your logic but I don`t agree with it. Just because I did`t edited an article before that doesn`t mean I am not allowed to do that in the future. Your examples have sense if you wish to show me like I am following Nmate, but how about this articles : [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169] (just a few examples) did Nmate edited them too? You make it look like I edit some articles just because Nmate does(what about the 90% of my contributions that have no contact with Nmate?) but I haven`t had any contact with this user for a while until now. I fail to see why do you think I deserve any kind of sanction? You presented a case like a problem for excluding info,... I am deleting unreferenced info while Nmate is "constructive" introducing unreferenced info and entering in conflicts while he insist it`s inclusion? Because I removed OR introduced by Nmate? Since my last report "boomerang" against me, by the same conditions, I except something similar to happen here without any block on either side since this is a content dispute. I notice that some of the worst comments on wiki by Nmate are ignored([170] and [171] - while for much less I got warned in 2010) but on my account removing a OR is a problem. Adrian (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Iadrian yu

I can confirm that Adrian is right in removing the sentence about "Kingdom of Hungary in 9th century". Instead of edit warring and reinserting unsourced stataments, he could have done a little research and learn that the Kingdom of Hungary was established by Stephen I in 1000 AD. He could simply have read the infobox of Kingdom of Hungary article, but he preferred to revert Adrian, what looks like battleground mentality for me. In the future, Nmate please use reliable source for exact [settlement x], because the form of government was at times changed or ambiguous, causing interruptions, for example [172]. --Omen1229 (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC) --Omen1229 (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a simple content dispute. I agree those settlements did not become parts of the Kingdom of Hungary in the 9th century but all of them became integral parts of the rising Principality of Hungary at the beginning of the 10th century. The Hungarian conquest was done by 902 according to the researchers. Moreover, the territories controlled by the Hungarian Grand Princes were much bigger than the latter territory of Kingdom of Hungary. For instance, the western borders of the principality reached to River Enns (today the border region between Upper and Lower Austria) until 955 because of the typical nomadic march (frontier, Gyepüelve in Hungarian) borderlands. Another thing, the map demonstrated by Omen1229 is highly dubious and misleading because the northern parts of Kingdom of Hungary or according to the map the "Slovak lands" (this expression is also dubious in the 11th century in connection with Kingdom of Hungary) were parts of Poland only from 1003 to 1015 or from 1015 to 1018 (according to the sources, see History of Slovakia). Fakirbakir (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Iadrian yu indeed took interest in Nmate's editing. The issue here is that the content added by Nmate is unreferenced and it consists of pretty obscure historical facts/claims that were added in cookie-cutter fashion to many articles. So I don't know if removing that is sanctionable, other than for both sides edit warring over it. Furthermore there are WP:SYNT concerns with adding info about who the territory belonged to three centuries before this or that village was ever mentioned in the historical record. (The list of former claimants/occupiers/migrators through that land can be pretty long.) Tijfo098 (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I feel like I have to comment on this, especially since I thought that the issue would go away after Adrian's failed attempt at having ArbCom impose a topic ban on Nmate as per the DIGWUREN case, but obviously it didn't. Don't get me wrong, Nmate can become really agitated at times (e.g. removing content from another user's talk page is a no-no) and needs to polish his English skills as well (an "issue" which has earned him a sanction when he called another editor a "pest" simply because he probably wasn't aware of the fact that the term sounds much harsher than he meant it to be), but I still have to say that he's a "constructive" editor because he's usually adding contents. This is in contrary to editors who oppose him (Adrian and Omen1229 being among them) and who are much keener on removing content instead of adding it (e.g. removal of Hungarian place names from articles being the most notorious example). I'd say that this alone's proof of the fact that this is much more than a simple "content dispute" (it's more of a "generalized" content dispute). And to make it worse while Nmate definitely shows a slight pro-Hungarian bias in his edits (basically he only edits articles which have any kind of connection to Hungary's present or past), his opposition is showing not only the exact opposite (i.e. an almost obsessive desire to remove Hungarian-related content from ANY article, even one that's as innocuous-looking as the one about Franz Liszt) but also a tendency to follow Nmate around (e.g. why'd Adrian go about editing articles about Hungarian villages of Slovakia if it's obvious that he's either a Serbian editor living in Romania or a Romanian editor living in Serbia -most probably Vojvodina-? Or Omen1229: why'd he post a notice on the Cluj-Napoca article's talk page if he's never edited Romanian-related articles before? Or why'd he suddenly edit articles about some small Transcarpathian villages that lie near the border if he has never engaged in such topics before? Isn't the only connection between those edits the fact that Nmate has edited them?) and express opinions about Hungarians in general that border paranoia (e.g. Adrian's edit summary from 2 years ago quoted above or this "friendly" ANI report by Omen1229 after I noted on his talk page that he might want to make the tone of his edits more neutral to avoid accusations of bias and one-sided POV). Therefore I think that imposing the very same restrictions for both Nmate and Adrian would create an impression that anti-Hungarian editors can do much more disruption than the people who are trying to stop them before they get any sanctions.

As for the admins' comments I have to side with Fut. Perf I'm afraid as per my reasons above. He was also right in pointing out the problem with imposing country-wise restrictions. Basically Slovakia (i.e. a state or a de facto recognized region of the land where the Slovaks live) did not exist before 1918 at all, so a topic ban of Slovakia would be pretty pointless for Nmate (who rarely seems to edit articles that concern present-day Slovakia and Slovak historical figures anyway), and in historical context he'd just say that he's dealing with content that deals with Hungarian history (and would be absolutely right even if the article's about villages lying in Slovakia; the same applies to Transylvania, Vojvodina and Transcarpathia all of which lie outside of Hungary's border but were part of Hungary prior to 1918). Also to turn this around a Hungarians-related ban for Adrian would also mean that he'd be banned from editing articles pertaining the Hungarian history as well (at least that's how it'd be interpreted by Hungarian editors I think). Therefore maybe a combination of interaction ban and an ethnic topics related ban would be a tad bit more effective. -- CoolKoon (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

why'd he post a notice on the Cluj-Napoca article's talk page if he's never edited Romanian-related articles before? > it's a problem for you? 1. Romanian-related article are not prohibited for users who them never edited before and 2. the reason is simple - it is similar issue as Bratislava article - WP recommendations are not accepted - Alternative names in begin section --Omen1229 (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the fact that you've started editing a brand new article isn't problematic on its own. However the article in question deals with a city that you obviously never heard of, don't know anything about and never been at in the first place. Thus there's a high probability of you stumbling upon it either by stalking around Nmate or another Hungarian editor or hearing about it from a banned+blocked Romanian editor who shall not be named. And frankly speaking I don't know which one's worse. Besides I won't cite WP recommendations if I were you because it was a Serbian editor with a strong anti-Hungarian bias (who shall not be named either) that insisted on the elimination of the minority names and misinterpreted/twisted all the WP rules and recommendations on the matter to make them "sound" in his favor. -- CoolKoon (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Your strange synthesis are more and more boring. Please stop with personal attacks or do you have some evidence that I never heard about Kluž? Thus there's a high probability of you stumbling upon it either by stalking around Nmate or another Hungarian editor > Completely outside, stalking around Nmate or another editors is totally unacceptable for me. "high probability" - what it means? Are you accusing me without evidence or what? So again - the reason is simple - it is similar issue as Bratislava article - WP recommendations are not accepted. And what do you think about these edits [173]?--Omen1229 (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Strange synthesis? Do you REALLY think that anybody would believe the fact that you've ended up there "by chance" or "by a mistake" that had nothing to do with either the Hungarian editors or the Romanian puppet master? I mean anybody who checks your edit log will see that never before have you edited ANY of the articles that deal with Romania (or Transcarpathia for that matter), yet all of a sudden you had this "sudden urge" to "export" the completely unconstructive discussion from the Bratislava article's talk page to that of Cluj? And then you "spontaneously" appeared on articles that deal with some Transcarpathian villages only to remove edits of Nmate by chance alone? I certainly hope that no people in their right mind would buy that.

What about the edits on the Elie Wiesel article? It's ok to show interest in Hungarian politics in general, but copying extracts from published articles word by word constitutes a copyright violation which's supposed to be reverted on sight (even the Hungarian president had to resign for similar reasons and besides, the newspaper agency could then sue Wikipedia's pants off for this). Thus Nmate has removed it. In fact I would've removed it too. It really isn't Nmate's fault that your English needs considerable improvement (to be able to slightly reword/summarize content extracted from news portals). -- CoolKoon (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

And then you "spontaneously" appeared on articles that deal with some Transcarpathian villages only to remove edits of Nmate by chance alone? I certainly hope that no people in their right mind would buy that. > Do you think articles where Nmate deleted my contribs without reason? I do not know what is your intention and your essays + synthesis without evidence are boring and confusing for me.

What about the edits on the Elie Wiesel article?... Thus Nmate has removed it. > I use your sentences: Do you REALLY think that anybody would believe the fact that Nmate has ended up there (for example here: 1 2) "by chance" or "by a mistake" that had nothing to do with either the Slovak/Romanian/Serbs editors or the Hungarian puppet master? And my Transylvanian puppet master is Count Dracula for your info. --Omen1229 (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Future Perfect at Sunrise wrote "I'm not sure I see the situation as quite so symmetrical. I'm open to convinced otherwise , but where I've looked, it has usually seemed to me that Nmate came across as consistently more rational, more articulate and less tendentious than Iadrian yu." > How can Nmate be more rational than Adrian? Adrian never referred to Nmate's I.Q. like Nmate did about Adrian's Iadrian yu is not an I.Q. champion. Adrian never ilegally deleted others' commments like Nmate did [174] . Adrian never recently used this kind of edit summaries [175] (ask a Hungarian for the translation) Adrian never removed correct templates, like "unreferenced" for an unreferenced article [176].Future Perfect at Sunrise had no problem give me topic-ban from all edits relating to Slovak-Historian history for a period of six months [177], he promised that he will look on my "oponnents", but nothing happened. On the other hand after canvass of Nmate he had time to block Samofi [178] . This was reason for him for topic ban: [179] and this for a block: [180] 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. [181] ) was unnoticed. Now "he thinks – refused to take action against Nmate" and he has also "a practical issue about overlap in the scope of the topic bans".--Omen1229 (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by CoolKoon moved here from below. @EdJohnston: The problem with such thinking is that many of Hungary's historical (or even some living) figures were born in places that don't belong to Hungary anymore yet they spent most of their life either in places that still belong to Hungary or went abroad (e.g. Endre Ady,Béla Bartók, Ányos Jedlik, Péter Pázmány etc. the list goes on and on), so interpreting today's borders in historical context (especially Hungarian historical context) is really asking for trouble (especially so since all the admins including you could be bugged with exceptions on a case-by-case basis almost every day considering the amount of such "controversial" historical figures). I still think that an interaction ban would be a better idea. (on a semi-related note I think I've read on WikiTravel that tourists traveling to Hungary should avoid bringing up the issue of Trianon unless they're good friends with the people they're visiting and/or are really knowledgeable about the topic which is a really good advice I'd say). -- CoolKoon (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Iadrian yu

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

Link to or quote the exact remedy you wish us to enforce. Please word your request so that someone with no background will be able to understand your request.--Tznkai (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• It is easy to see that Nmate and Iadrian yu have repeatedly clashed on Eastern European topics over the last couple of years. Admins should consider doing something. If we still believed in interaction bans, I would propose that. Instead, I suggest that the domain of Eastern Europe be divided up to reduce the interaction between these editors. Nmate has received a logged notice under WP:ARBEE and Iadrian yu was effectively notified of ARBEE due to the filing of a complaint against him at AE in August, 2010.

To reduce the interaction between these editors I propose an indefinite ban of each editor from certain countries:

• Nmate to be banned from Romania, Serbia and Slovakia
• Iadrian yu to be banned from Hungary and the Czech Republic.

This division would still allow each editor to contribute in the areas they appear to know best. Iadrian yu identifies himself as a native speaker of Romanian and a level-5 speaker of Serbian. Nmate doesn't made his language abilities known on his user page but the 16 articles he has created are mainly about towns populated by Hungarians.

• Each of the two users has made past edits which suggest to me they have problems with neutrality when writing about topics that concern particular ethnicities. My proposal doesn't solve that problem, since Nmate will be able to write unchecked by Iadrian yu in articles in his own domain, and vice versa. This proposal mainly conserves admin bandwidth and space at the noticeboards. If any further problems arise with these editors on Eastern European topics, other parties can report them. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the situation as quite so symmetrical. I'm open to convinced otherwise , but where I've looked, it has usually seemed to me that Nmate came across as consistently more rational, more articulate and less tendentious than Iadrian yu. For that reason, and also because we just – rightly, I think – refused to take action against Nmate in pretty much the same matters, I don't think handing out equal sanctions against each at this point would be quite fair.

There's also a practical issue about overlap in the scope of the topic bans. How are they going to be delimited, by modern state boundaries? Keep in mind that, for instance, Slovakia was part of Hungary for a large part of its history. So, if editor A is banned from Slovakia and B from Hungary, which of the two is still allowed to edit about shared history? If A writes an article about a Hungarian king, will he be blocked if the article mentions that he conquered a city that is now in Slovakia? If B writes an article about a Slovak town, will he be blocked if the article mentions what administrative unit the town was part of in the 19th century? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• For problems with Nmate's editing, see the list of reverts submitted with this report. Nmate was adding to 28 different articles that the territory in which they were located became part of the Kingdom of Hungary in the 9th century, while our own article on Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages says that the kingdom began in the year 1000. Nmate is assigning these towns to the kingdom (a) before sources say that the kingdom existed, (b) before there is any historical record of the existence of the towns themselves. This looks to be pro-Hungary glorification. See also the Executive Court of Prešov, an article created by Nmate which retains most of the non-neutral text (and lack of sources) with which he created it in 2008.
• For problems with overlap of nationalities in EE, I suggest that each party could work on anything that is located within the modern boundaries of their permitted countries, even if the town (or person) was connected with a different nationality in the period being written about. Each party could consult the banning administrator for exemption in particular cases. EdJohnston (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)