Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Blocked for 2 days for the admitted violation of the 1RR sanction as well as for the response above, which violates WP:BATTLE, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Should MarshallBagramyan continue to violate the sanction after the block has expired, I recommend a lengthy topic ban. Sandstein 20:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
72.199.110.160 is currently engaged in an edit war on the article in breech of Arbcom ruling here. The IP has been doing a lot of constructive work in improving citations, but has also been inserting material that other editors consider biased refusing to engage in any conversation despite repeated requests see here. More recently the editor has inserted a series of mini essays on objectivist philosophy. This has been discussed on the talk page here and agreement reached that the material is inappropriate. Despite this the IP has re-inserted the material here and here. The IP has refused (or rather ignored) all requests to discuss matters on the talk page of the article. Requests to do so on the IPs talk page have been completely ignored, including ones warning that failure to do so would result in the issue being raised here. This is a pattern that also occurred last December before the Arbcom ruling. The reversions are similar in number to those that earned variable length topic bans for other authors and are compounded in this case by a resolute refusal to engage in any discussion. Ideally the imposition of a topic ban or other penalty maybe the only way to get this editors attention. -- Snowded ( talk) 03:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
User is still not engaging on the talk page. Per ArbCom's decision we would greatly like some kind of administrative intervention here. TallNapoleon ( talk) 06:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Snowded is a continual "force" for ensuring any discussion devolves into a unconstructive mess. "The IP editor is clearly pro-Rand so I can see why Karbinski would support him or her" - is a full unambiguous attack on me as he is essentially saying "everything Karbinski might have to say or has said is POV and should be disregarded." How can constructive discussion follow? Putting editors on the defensive on the talk pages will always be more disruptive than a bonifide content contributer with poor wiki-ettiquette. Karbinski ( talk) 14:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Per the ArbComm ruling I would like to ask that we get some kind of administrator intervention to ensure order on the talk page. Just, please, if a couple could watch and help ensure a more civil environment that would be fantastic. TallNapoleon ( talk) 19:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed. Nothing to be done (see top). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 00:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
I don't think that this edit warrants asking for further sanctions at AE. Given the topic ban in October, it perhaps time to loosen those restrictions somewhat; it is draconian to place an indef ban on an editor editing in one area. -- Russavia Dialogue 23:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for one week. Xasha's edit at issue violates the Eastern Europe topic ban that is still in force. If Xasha thinks the topic ban is no longer needed, he should have appealed the topic ban, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, instead of violating it; indeed, the administrator imposing the block indicated his willingness to review it at [18]. Xasha may still ask for such a review as soon as this block expires. The duration of the block is in line with the duration of Xasha's previous blocks related to this area of conflict. Sandstein 05:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Firstly I request that, unlike some previous 911 ARBCOM cases, an uninvolved admin handle this case.
The first four diffs
Jehochman provided
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28] are no more than the same two sentences with multiple references, consistently reverted by a group of editors with a particular POV, that refer to a peer reviewed paper on findings that are used by the major proponents of the controlled demolition theory to support their claims. The edit contains no OR, POV or comment and as such is entirely compliant with the article subject. At worst
Bov has technically broken his revert restriction while those reverting the edit are possibly themselves guilty of a violation of the 911ARBCom. The last of the diffs
[29] is a talk page request for an explanation as to why the edit is being reverted. The only reply Bov is given to this request is "I have requested arbitration enforcement" by Jehochman who has a record of such POV behaviour as a first action in preference to either first warning an editor if concerned or answering such questions. This case needs to be viewed in light of the fact that the article name was recently changed from Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center to the more inclusive title World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Care should be taken to actually check the edits relationship to the article for the determination of good faith.
Wayne (
talk)
15:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment Looking at Wikipedia:ARB9/11, [30] Bov is already on an indefinite 1rr per week restriction for previous IP abuse; he's clearly violated this. Is there a reason his edits haven't been reported in relation to this restriction? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 16:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.
Indefinite article and talk topic ban placed. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 08:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Jingiby ( talk · contribs) has been on ARBMAC-related sanctions for ages, but he keeps "forgetting" them. Most recently, a revert parole was re-enforced on him, with 1rv/48h and an injunction of preceding each revert by an explanation on talk and 3hrs waiting time to allow for discussion (see User talk:Jingiby#Reverting). He nevertheless keeps making immediate reverts without prior discussion (though I think he does generally stick to the 1/48h part). The latest one was today, here: [35].
Since I am (again) the reverted party, I can't act to enforce the parole. Could somebody please step in (and remember this is a repeat violation.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Per my comment at Discussion concerning Mr Taz below, I am not sure that section is an enforceable remedy. I will ask the editor who wrote it, Rlevse ( talk · contribs), to explain. Sandstein 20:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The sanction or remedy that has been violated per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case which states that: All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. This is clearly illustrated with Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: Revert #1 Revert #2 Revert #3. -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with both O Fenian and SirFozzie. While I don't like it, never did and still don't it has worked. Now if it is the case that it is not an enforceable arbitral remedy I'll be looking to have my block log amended to reflect this and everyone else who has been blocked using it. As has been pointed out by SirFozzie there has been a voluminous history of this, with multiple ArbCom cases and have been addressed my multiple Admin's so are you now suggesting both you and they were all wrong. We have a clear breech here and User:Sandstein dose not want to enforce it, and this is not the first time. User:Sandstein never said anything when they rejected the unblock requests made under this ruling so what has changed? -- Domer48 'fenian' 08:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply by The Maiden City
Having just come across this childish vendetta by O Fenian and BigDunc I can respond as follows.
For your information the so-called reverts were edits. It was O Fenian and BigDunc who actually took it in turns to revert my edits. It is quite clear that these two individuals (if in fact they are two) have commenced edit warring against me in every article that I have contributed to. I have already reported O Fenian as a Troll due to his actions. This very request for sanctions comes from and is sponsored by these two users, it is further proof of their conspiracy against me aimed at preventing me from contributing verified edits to certain controversial Irish related articles. A quick reference to the Free Derry ( talk) page highlights O Fenians activity against all and anything edited by me. There are no others involved. I intend to continue to make genuine contributions to these articles and will endeavour to have the edits incorporated within the articles no matter how disruptive these individuals attempt to be. I do not have enough experience of Wikipedia to evade all the pitfalls and certainly do not know all the rules but can only assure administrators that I am genuinely trying to improve the articles that I now contribute to. -- The Maiden City ( talk) 23:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Note to this case by SPI clerk Mayalld ( talk) An SPI case has concluded that following his earler block, this user continued to edit without logging in (as 78.33.101.58 ( talk · contribs)), evading the block, and that the request to unblock the account came only when the IP was itself blocked (to evade the block on the IP). As the user has been engaged in repeated block evasion, he has now been indef blocked for that evasion. The IP is blocked for a week. As the IP appears to be static, it might be proper to block for longer. Mayalld ( talk) 15:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
This enforcement request is now moot because The Maiden City ( talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked for block evasion. As to the procedural issue, ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request to amend prior case The Troubles indicates that the sanction at issue is a community sanction, not an arbitral remedy, and I assume that the case page will be amended to reflect this. Sandstein 16:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I am reluctant to accede to this request. All but three edits of Perscurator are from autumn 2008 or earlier, most also predating the warning, and are presumably not very actionable any more. The newer two edits, linked to in the request, may have been intended to present the conspiracy theories (for which and their proponents I have no sympathy at all) in a favorable light - but, taken by themselves, they do not seem to be objectionable: they are concerned with apparently reliable sources and were not made in a disruptive manner. Whether these sources belong in the article seems to be worthy of good faith discussion; this content issue should not be settled by an arbitration enforcement request. Sandstein 17:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
If you want proof that Vesa=Perscurator, look at this edit and the page it links to. Furthermore I can see that Vesa had discussed influencing Wikipedia articles before on the same site: [41] I think something should be done here, since this is a clear violation of policy and campaigns to get people to edit articles could certainly be problematic, but since I've edited a lot in this area and interacted with Perscurator before I am definitely involved. Hut 8.5 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: The following, up to 17:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC), was moved from the "result" section below.
No action. No administrator or other user on this board, apart from the requesting user, appears to consider this to be actionable at this time. Concerning Perscurator, see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists. Sandstein 10:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
In the same thread, Vesa says It would be nice, though, to see more of us truthers there..., which is an attempt to recruit truthers to win the Wikipedia discussion. EdJohnston ( talk) 04:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)This blog post and its replies are trying to get people to add material to Wikipedia articles, including advice on wearing down editors removing the material in question. One of the people posting this is "Vesa", who edits Wikipedia as Perscurator. Hut 8.5 16:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm very dissapointed with the ego driven POV pushing shown in this case (admin excepted, he's only bowing to consensus). Perscurator's "soliciting accounts off site" was in 2007 not 2008 as claimed and the instance in this blog post "only two days ago" is definately not soliciting unless those interpreting it are either illiterate or do not have English as their mother tongue. As for Hut 8.5's claim "its replies" support the soliciting can he please point out where? I can see nothing even resembling this. In effect an editor is topic banned solely for saying "It would be nice, though, to see more of us truthers there" on an offsite forum. Surely someone has a more legitimate example to justify the ban. If not then you clearly make the case for what is posted in those forums and are playing right into their hands by losing the moral highground. Wayne ( talk) 16:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
In view if the discussion above, I am blocking Perscurator for a month and topic-banning-him from 9/11 topics for a year, all for violations of WP:TEAMWORK as described above. Sandstein 06:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Problem: Adding exotic non-typical theories in article Socionics
Some people (Tcaudilllg one of them, but similar problems may apear in that again, and again) persistently do war of corrections in article of Socionics. Socionics is typology described by Aushra Augustinavichute on base of Jungian typology. I think, that article should contain only theories of Jung, Augustinavichute, and also theories and methods popular among modern socionists. I removed descriptions of non-typical theories for practice of what is known as socionics now - Talanov's theories, author's theories of Bukalov, and some concrete description of methods where are many divergences between different socionist, leaving only general description. Plus sometimes usefull information is removed by these impudent incompetent vandals, wich naively and fanatically follow non-proved theories of next guru. Also some of them use theoretically incorrect naming for types (for ex, ENTp instead of ENTP), because qualities designating by these letters are the same in socionics and Myers-Briggs typology, - they say that these typologies have some different theories and that is why the same qualities in them should have different names (it's some kind of madness, maybe).
Is here anybody powerfull, who can help to resolve the situation, and better if he knows Russian language because almost all information is in Russian about socionics. I said my arguments, but there were no contrarguments from other side and I doubt that they whould change my opinion. Now, I do not want to discuss with these incompetent and fanatic people, so we need administrator who will decide what should be there, and should not to be there. I realy got tired to remove bullshit from that article and restore deleted by some incompetent people. Maybe some of men among administrators, when conflict will be solved, will be looking sometimes at situation with that article and bring some order there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ATcaudilllg&diff=286233820&oldid=284792819
Closed as not actionable. This is mainly a content dispute about a very obscure subject and does not require arbitration enforcement, because there seems to be no pertinent arbitration case to enforce. There may be user conduct issues present too, but these are not usefully presented here and would not belong on this noticeboard in any case. User8080, to resolve your dispute, please follow the steps described at WP:DR, which you do not seem to have done so far. Consider inviting a third opinion as described at WP:3O. Sandstein 16:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I am a habitual editor of all the articles whose diffs are cited above, and am engaged in housekeeping task of aligning all dates to dmy/mdy, mostly with regard to ISO-formatted dates. Ohconfucius ( talk) 04:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Ohconfucius advised to more cautious in delinking dates until the injunction is lifted. PhilKnight ( talk) 16:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Worth watching, under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy and related cases. He appears - or at least claims to be - to be the author of several books promoting various substances. He's doing a bit of self-promotion, replacing articles with samples from his books, that kind of thing. I think a lot of his contributions have been deleted with the articles. Probably not necessary to act yet, but I think a few more eyes would help. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 00:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
The case certainly seems actionable. But I'd appreciate it if someone could explain to me why the section Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case is an enforceable arbitral remedy. It does not seem to be part of a decision voted upon by the committee and appears to be drafted with less than the usual care. Sandstein 20:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, O Fenian, you have made two rapid reverts on the same page, [50] and [51]. Why should you not be sanctioned too? Sandstein 20:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The link Sandstein is referring to is not part of the formal case remedy voted on by the arbs in the case. It is part background and part observation that I wrote and should be treated as such. It's in the log section, not the decision section. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The sanction or remedy that has been violated per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case which states that: All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. This is clearly illustrated with Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy. Version reverted to revert one revert two revert three (third revert made after being notified of this discussion).-- Domer48 'fenian' 21:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
After giving this some thought, I believe it may just be a case of an enthusiastic editor lacking in competence that has stumbled into making contentious edits unwittingly. Take his (hopefully soon to be deleted) upload of File:Irish North-South divide.png, which he inserted into an article actually claiming the area in blue was Northern Ireland (for the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with the actual division see File:Ireland-Capitals.PNG). That does not strike me as the action of someone being knowingly disruptive, more ignorantly disruptive. O Fenian ( talk) 09:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
I have outlined my view of the situation with regard to 9/11-related articles and the ongoing content-related disagreements in a comment to a recent request by Jehochman to amend the prior arbitration case regarding September 11 conspiracy theories. It is sad to see that Jehochman is now requesting administrative sanctions against me, instead of engaging in a discussion on the issues at hand. I will of course comment here on any specific accusations Jehochman may bring forward with regard to my editing. -- Cs32en ( talk) 21:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Transcluded text from Cs32en user talk page
|
---|
I have started a thread at WP:AE about your editing. Feel free to comment. Jehochman Talk 20:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This thread has been copied from User talk:Cs32en at the time the A/E request was withdrawn. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. -- Cs32en ( talk) 00:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC) |
Cs32en just referred to my editing as a "rampage". [59] That's not how WP:AGF works. I already warned them about that earlier today. [60] Jehochman Talk 20:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.
I am withdrawing this request as Cs32en has provided assurances on their talk page that satisfy my concerns. Jehochman Talk 00:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Ce107 ( talk · contribs), aka 79.166.2.237 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 79.166.48.76 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), ostensibly a new user but with intimate knowledge of prior disputes that marks him as a likely reincarnation of something, has launched into a spree of personal attacks over Greek national issues, against myself and several other editors ("goons" [61], ("Oh I do enjoy insulting people" [62]). Could somebody apply good old WP:ARBMAC (the original) ? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I was told to come here by an adminstrator- "Take it to WP:AE if there is a problem, but at present we just need to handle the existing parties to the case." Hipocrite ( talk) 18:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't engage in forum shopping. You already raised this issue at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG. Jehochman Talk 18:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
No action taken. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
What other banned accounts do you mean? Sandstein 13:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The edits reported in the "request" section are all to the article talk page and are not prima facie disruptive. We do not sanction people for suggesting changes to articles, even where we might disagree with the proposed changes or consider them contrary to policy. The edits, as such, are not sanctionable.
On the other hand, I agree with the assessment that this is a single purpose account for whose conduct sock- or meatpuppetry might be a reasonable explananation. What do others think? Sandstein 20:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I am indefinitely blocking Johninwiki for the edit cited by RxS. Accusing Wikipedia editors of taking part in an alleged murderous conspiracy is quite beyond the pale. To cover the eventuality that he is unblocked, I am also indefinitely topic-banning him from 9/11-related articles, because his conduct indicates that he is not here to contribute to this topic from a neutral point of view. Sandstein 05:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
This dispute seems to be about
According to the source (CBS, Aug. 6, 2006), Jones was at the time "a tenured physicist at Brigham Young University" (he is now Professor emeritus). Cs32en 19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The Guardian refers to Prof. Jones and the other people mentioned in the paragraph of the article as "scholars" [75]. Cs32en 22:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Here are a few diffs showing past efforts to guide this editor away from disruption:
They seem to have had no impact. Other attempts may have been made on article talk pages. Jehochman Talk 23:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, can you explain to me why you are referring to other individual editors as "they": "They came here", "They have a long history", "They are fully on notice"? This approach appears to me as de-personalizing and offensive. Cs32en 23:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The question whether certain people should be described as "scholars" does not call for further discussion here because it is a content dispute, whereas discretionary sanctions are intended to address conduct problems. The "Revising *DISHONEST* deletion" edit summary is incivil, but I have not yet seen evidence that it is characteristic of a pattern of behavior (which would call for sanctions) and not an isolated incident (which would not). Sandstein 08:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.
The hostility [82] and accusations of censorship [83] make WLRoss one of the more difficult editors to work with. I brought this to his attention and he replied here: [84] Tom Harrison Talk 20:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
WLRoss banned from articles and talk pages which relate to the events of September 11 for 1-week. PhilKnight ( talk) 12:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Abtract has been blocked for one month by Kevin ( talk · contribs). Sandstein 07:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have blocked for 1 month, being the maximum available in the remedy. The diff noted above was sufficient of itself, but the spectacular failure of good faith by Abtract above sealed the deal.
Jehochman noted at the time if Abtract's last block that discussion regarding a community ban would be in order at the next violation. I may start that discussion at WP:ANI if I have time. Kevin ( talk) 07:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
3A) Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth.
User has posted to the talk page of the arbitration case on Scientology, this is clearly a violation of the above terms of their topic ban.
The user has self reverted so I'm not sure whether any action is required. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It was his comment on the talk page of the arbitration case that I was referring to, I wasn't aware of any action on the Scientology article. The Legendary Shadow! ( talk) 13:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless repeated or disruptive, I don't think that banning a named party to a RFAR from comment is a good idea, even after the close. Meanwhile, isn't launching AE complaints broadly concerning Scientology articles also topic-blocked under the "and so forth"? (To prevent continuing conflict by other means.) It's best to let all drop, and I'm sure that many admins are keeping an eye out for serious violations. (With that, out of here before I get smacked—but clarification of if the block also extends to AE actions as well would be nice.) AndroidCat ( talk) 14:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Mind you, the requesting user above, The Legendary Shadow!, has been topic-banned by the same ArbCom ( Diff). So I consider her enforcement request as another attempt to stir up trouble and unrest. As I noted on the ArbCom page (that is not an "article" per 3b) of the ArbCom "decision"): there are lies left in this case and that is why it will never get to rest until the discrimination issue is sorted out. Shutterbug ( talk) 20:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Closed without action. This request is not actionable because the "request" section does not contain an actual diff of the conduct alleged to have violated an arbitration decision. Sandstein 06:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
I would firstly express my concern that yet another complaint over Wowest's conduct is being presented to this noticeboard. I am unsure at this point whether the complaint has any substance (a point that I will explore in a little more detail below), but I would invite input from Wowest as to how he feels about being the subject of another complaint (even after my quite clear final warning a few weeks ago).
I would observe that the crux of this complaint seems, to my mind, to be that Wowest's conduct has constituted inappropriate canvassing of other editors. I copy for reference the summary table from Wikipedia:Canvassing, the project's behavioural guideline on this aspect of editor conduct:
Scale | Message | Audience | Transparency | ||||
Friendly notice | Limited posting | AND | Neutral | AND | Nonpartisan | AND | Open |
↕ | ↕ | ↕ | ↕ | ||||
Inappropriate canvassing | Mass posting | OR | Biased | OR | Partisan | OR | Secret |
Term | Excessive cross-posting | Campaigning | Votestacking | Stealth canvassing |
If sanctions are to be placed on Wowest's account as a result of this complaint, I would expect them to be because an administrator thinks his comments to other editors to be "inappropriate canvassing" (in one of its four shades—scale, message, audience, or transparency) rather than a "friendly notice." By extension, the question we ask ought to be whether Wowest's comments are negatively influencing editing in this subject area. I tentatively suggest that I think that may unfortunately be the case.
I would invite the input of other administrators (and, as above, Wowest) on this. AGK 15:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
By posting two messages to a partisan audience, Wowest ( talk · contribs) has not followed WP:CANVASS. The user's messages were limited, neutral, and open. Wowest ( talk · contribs) has apparently not been warned to stop the canvassing before this A/E request has been filed. There is damage to the editing process, but the damage is limited, as the canvassing can be taken into account when evaluating consensus. As sanctions are preventative, they should only be applied if editors continue a form of disruptive behavior after having been warned, or if they resume a form of behaviour about which they have already been warned previously. We certainly would be able to better judge about this case if the user had been warned before this request has been filed. A warning should generally be accompanied by advice on how to proceed without violating policy, i.e., in this case, the possibility of informing all editors who have contributed to related articles irrespective of their views on the issue. Cs32en 16:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear AGK:
This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Blocked for 2 days for the admitted violation of the 1RR sanction as well as for the response above, which violates WP:BATTLE, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Should MarshallBagramyan continue to violate the sanction after the block has expired, I recommend a lengthy topic ban. Sandstein 20:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
72.199.110.160 is currently engaged in an edit war on the article in breech of Arbcom ruling here. The IP has been doing a lot of constructive work in improving citations, but has also been inserting material that other editors consider biased refusing to engage in any conversation despite repeated requests see here. More recently the editor has inserted a series of mini essays on objectivist philosophy. This has been discussed on the talk page here and agreement reached that the material is inappropriate. Despite this the IP has re-inserted the material here and here. The IP has refused (or rather ignored) all requests to discuss matters on the talk page of the article. Requests to do so on the IPs talk page have been completely ignored, including ones warning that failure to do so would result in the issue being raised here. This is a pattern that also occurred last December before the Arbcom ruling. The reversions are similar in number to those that earned variable length topic bans for other authors and are compounded in this case by a resolute refusal to engage in any discussion. Ideally the imposition of a topic ban or other penalty maybe the only way to get this editors attention. -- Snowded ( talk) 03:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
User is still not engaging on the talk page. Per ArbCom's decision we would greatly like some kind of administrative intervention here. TallNapoleon ( talk) 06:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Snowded is a continual "force" for ensuring any discussion devolves into a unconstructive mess. "The IP editor is clearly pro-Rand so I can see why Karbinski would support him or her" - is a full unambiguous attack on me as he is essentially saying "everything Karbinski might have to say or has said is POV and should be disregarded." How can constructive discussion follow? Putting editors on the defensive on the talk pages will always be more disruptive than a bonifide content contributer with poor wiki-ettiquette. Karbinski ( talk) 14:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Per the ArbComm ruling I would like to ask that we get some kind of administrator intervention to ensure order on the talk page. Just, please, if a couple could watch and help ensure a more civil environment that would be fantastic. TallNapoleon ( talk) 19:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed. Nothing to be done (see top). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 00:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
I don't think that this edit warrants asking for further sanctions at AE. Given the topic ban in October, it perhaps time to loosen those restrictions somewhat; it is draconian to place an indef ban on an editor editing in one area. -- Russavia Dialogue 23:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for one week. Xasha's edit at issue violates the Eastern Europe topic ban that is still in force. If Xasha thinks the topic ban is no longer needed, he should have appealed the topic ban, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, instead of violating it; indeed, the administrator imposing the block indicated his willingness to review it at [18]. Xasha may still ask for such a review as soon as this block expires. The duration of the block is in line with the duration of Xasha's previous blocks related to this area of conflict. Sandstein 05:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Firstly I request that, unlike some previous 911 ARBCOM cases, an uninvolved admin handle this case.
The first four diffs
Jehochman provided
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28] are no more than the same two sentences with multiple references, consistently reverted by a group of editors with a particular POV, that refer to a peer reviewed paper on findings that are used by the major proponents of the controlled demolition theory to support their claims. The edit contains no OR, POV or comment and as such is entirely compliant with the article subject. At worst
Bov has technically broken his revert restriction while those reverting the edit are possibly themselves guilty of a violation of the 911ARBCom. The last of the diffs
[29] is a talk page request for an explanation as to why the edit is being reverted. The only reply Bov is given to this request is "I have requested arbitration enforcement" by Jehochman who has a record of such POV behaviour as a first action in preference to either first warning an editor if concerned or answering such questions. This case needs to be viewed in light of the fact that the article name was recently changed from Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center to the more inclusive title World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Care should be taken to actually check the edits relationship to the article for the determination of good faith.
Wayne (
talk)
15:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment Looking at Wikipedia:ARB9/11, [30] Bov is already on an indefinite 1rr per week restriction for previous IP abuse; he's clearly violated this. Is there a reason his edits haven't been reported in relation to this restriction? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 16:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.
Indefinite article and talk topic ban placed. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 08:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Jingiby ( talk · contribs) has been on ARBMAC-related sanctions for ages, but he keeps "forgetting" them. Most recently, a revert parole was re-enforced on him, with 1rv/48h and an injunction of preceding each revert by an explanation on talk and 3hrs waiting time to allow for discussion (see User talk:Jingiby#Reverting). He nevertheless keeps making immediate reverts without prior discussion (though I think he does generally stick to the 1/48h part). The latest one was today, here: [35].
Since I am (again) the reverted party, I can't act to enforce the parole. Could somebody please step in (and remember this is a repeat violation.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Per my comment at Discussion concerning Mr Taz below, I am not sure that section is an enforceable remedy. I will ask the editor who wrote it, Rlevse ( talk · contribs), to explain. Sandstein 20:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The sanction or remedy that has been violated per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case which states that: All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. This is clearly illustrated with Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: Revert #1 Revert #2 Revert #3. -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with both O Fenian and SirFozzie. While I don't like it, never did and still don't it has worked. Now if it is the case that it is not an enforceable arbitral remedy I'll be looking to have my block log amended to reflect this and everyone else who has been blocked using it. As has been pointed out by SirFozzie there has been a voluminous history of this, with multiple ArbCom cases and have been addressed my multiple Admin's so are you now suggesting both you and they were all wrong. We have a clear breech here and User:Sandstein dose not want to enforce it, and this is not the first time. User:Sandstein never said anything when they rejected the unblock requests made under this ruling so what has changed? -- Domer48 'fenian' 08:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply by The Maiden City
Having just come across this childish vendetta by O Fenian and BigDunc I can respond as follows.
For your information the so-called reverts were edits. It was O Fenian and BigDunc who actually took it in turns to revert my edits. It is quite clear that these two individuals (if in fact they are two) have commenced edit warring against me in every article that I have contributed to. I have already reported O Fenian as a Troll due to his actions. This very request for sanctions comes from and is sponsored by these two users, it is further proof of their conspiracy against me aimed at preventing me from contributing verified edits to certain controversial Irish related articles. A quick reference to the Free Derry ( talk) page highlights O Fenians activity against all and anything edited by me. There are no others involved. I intend to continue to make genuine contributions to these articles and will endeavour to have the edits incorporated within the articles no matter how disruptive these individuals attempt to be. I do not have enough experience of Wikipedia to evade all the pitfalls and certainly do not know all the rules but can only assure administrators that I am genuinely trying to improve the articles that I now contribute to. -- The Maiden City ( talk) 23:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Note to this case by SPI clerk Mayalld ( talk) An SPI case has concluded that following his earler block, this user continued to edit without logging in (as 78.33.101.58 ( talk · contribs)), evading the block, and that the request to unblock the account came only when the IP was itself blocked (to evade the block on the IP). As the user has been engaged in repeated block evasion, he has now been indef blocked for that evasion. The IP is blocked for a week. As the IP appears to be static, it might be proper to block for longer. Mayalld ( talk) 15:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
This enforcement request is now moot because The Maiden City ( talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked for block evasion. As to the procedural issue, ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request to amend prior case The Troubles indicates that the sanction at issue is a community sanction, not an arbitral remedy, and I assume that the case page will be amended to reflect this. Sandstein 16:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I am reluctant to accede to this request. All but three edits of Perscurator are from autumn 2008 or earlier, most also predating the warning, and are presumably not very actionable any more. The newer two edits, linked to in the request, may have been intended to present the conspiracy theories (for which and their proponents I have no sympathy at all) in a favorable light - but, taken by themselves, they do not seem to be objectionable: they are concerned with apparently reliable sources and were not made in a disruptive manner. Whether these sources belong in the article seems to be worthy of good faith discussion; this content issue should not be settled by an arbitration enforcement request. Sandstein 17:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
If you want proof that Vesa=Perscurator, look at this edit and the page it links to. Furthermore I can see that Vesa had discussed influencing Wikipedia articles before on the same site: [41] I think something should be done here, since this is a clear violation of policy and campaigns to get people to edit articles could certainly be problematic, but since I've edited a lot in this area and interacted with Perscurator before I am definitely involved. Hut 8.5 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: The following, up to 17:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC), was moved from the "result" section below.
No action. No administrator or other user on this board, apart from the requesting user, appears to consider this to be actionable at this time. Concerning Perscurator, see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists. Sandstein 10:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
In the same thread, Vesa says It would be nice, though, to see more of us truthers there..., which is an attempt to recruit truthers to win the Wikipedia discussion. EdJohnston ( talk) 04:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)This blog post and its replies are trying to get people to add material to Wikipedia articles, including advice on wearing down editors removing the material in question. One of the people posting this is "Vesa", who edits Wikipedia as Perscurator. Hut 8.5 16:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm very dissapointed with the ego driven POV pushing shown in this case (admin excepted, he's only bowing to consensus). Perscurator's "soliciting accounts off site" was in 2007 not 2008 as claimed and the instance in this blog post "only two days ago" is definately not soliciting unless those interpreting it are either illiterate or do not have English as their mother tongue. As for Hut 8.5's claim "its replies" support the soliciting can he please point out where? I can see nothing even resembling this. In effect an editor is topic banned solely for saying "It would be nice, though, to see more of us truthers there" on an offsite forum. Surely someone has a more legitimate example to justify the ban. If not then you clearly make the case for what is posted in those forums and are playing right into their hands by losing the moral highground. Wayne ( talk) 16:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
In view if the discussion above, I am blocking Perscurator for a month and topic-banning-him from 9/11 topics for a year, all for violations of WP:TEAMWORK as described above. Sandstein 06:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Problem: Adding exotic non-typical theories in article Socionics
Some people (Tcaudilllg one of them, but similar problems may apear in that again, and again) persistently do war of corrections in article of Socionics. Socionics is typology described by Aushra Augustinavichute on base of Jungian typology. I think, that article should contain only theories of Jung, Augustinavichute, and also theories and methods popular among modern socionists. I removed descriptions of non-typical theories for practice of what is known as socionics now - Talanov's theories, author's theories of Bukalov, and some concrete description of methods where are many divergences between different socionist, leaving only general description. Plus sometimes usefull information is removed by these impudent incompetent vandals, wich naively and fanatically follow non-proved theories of next guru. Also some of them use theoretically incorrect naming for types (for ex, ENTp instead of ENTP), because qualities designating by these letters are the same in socionics and Myers-Briggs typology, - they say that these typologies have some different theories and that is why the same qualities in them should have different names (it's some kind of madness, maybe).
Is here anybody powerfull, who can help to resolve the situation, and better if he knows Russian language because almost all information is in Russian about socionics. I said my arguments, but there were no contrarguments from other side and I doubt that they whould change my opinion. Now, I do not want to discuss with these incompetent and fanatic people, so we need administrator who will decide what should be there, and should not to be there. I realy got tired to remove bullshit from that article and restore deleted by some incompetent people. Maybe some of men among administrators, when conflict will be solved, will be looking sometimes at situation with that article and bring some order there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ATcaudilllg&diff=286233820&oldid=284792819
Closed as not actionable. This is mainly a content dispute about a very obscure subject and does not require arbitration enforcement, because there seems to be no pertinent arbitration case to enforce. There may be user conduct issues present too, but these are not usefully presented here and would not belong on this noticeboard in any case. User8080, to resolve your dispute, please follow the steps described at WP:DR, which you do not seem to have done so far. Consider inviting a third opinion as described at WP:3O. Sandstein 16:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I am a habitual editor of all the articles whose diffs are cited above, and am engaged in housekeeping task of aligning all dates to dmy/mdy, mostly with regard to ISO-formatted dates. Ohconfucius ( talk) 04:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Ohconfucius advised to more cautious in delinking dates until the injunction is lifted. PhilKnight ( talk) 16:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Worth watching, under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy and related cases. He appears - or at least claims to be - to be the author of several books promoting various substances. He's doing a bit of self-promotion, replacing articles with samples from his books, that kind of thing. I think a lot of his contributions have been deleted with the articles. Probably not necessary to act yet, but I think a few more eyes would help. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 00:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
The case certainly seems actionable. But I'd appreciate it if someone could explain to me why the section Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case is an enforceable arbitral remedy. It does not seem to be part of a decision voted upon by the committee and appears to be drafted with less than the usual care. Sandstein 20:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, O Fenian, you have made two rapid reverts on the same page, [50] and [51]. Why should you not be sanctioned too? Sandstein 20:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The link Sandstein is referring to is not part of the formal case remedy voted on by the arbs in the case. It is part background and part observation that I wrote and should be treated as such. It's in the log section, not the decision section. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The sanction or remedy that has been violated per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case which states that: All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. This is clearly illustrated with Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy. Version reverted to revert one revert two revert three (third revert made after being notified of this discussion).-- Domer48 'fenian' 21:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
After giving this some thought, I believe it may just be a case of an enthusiastic editor lacking in competence that has stumbled into making contentious edits unwittingly. Take his (hopefully soon to be deleted) upload of File:Irish North-South divide.png, which he inserted into an article actually claiming the area in blue was Northern Ireland (for the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with the actual division see File:Ireland-Capitals.PNG). That does not strike me as the action of someone being knowingly disruptive, more ignorantly disruptive. O Fenian ( talk) 09:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
I have outlined my view of the situation with regard to 9/11-related articles and the ongoing content-related disagreements in a comment to a recent request by Jehochman to amend the prior arbitration case regarding September 11 conspiracy theories. It is sad to see that Jehochman is now requesting administrative sanctions against me, instead of engaging in a discussion on the issues at hand. I will of course comment here on any specific accusations Jehochman may bring forward with regard to my editing. -- Cs32en ( talk) 21:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Transcluded text from Cs32en user talk page
|
---|
I have started a thread at WP:AE about your editing. Feel free to comment. Jehochman Talk 20:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This thread has been copied from User talk:Cs32en at the time the A/E request was withdrawn. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. -- Cs32en ( talk) 00:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC) |
Cs32en just referred to my editing as a "rampage". [59] That's not how WP:AGF works. I already warned them about that earlier today. [60] Jehochman Talk 20:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.
I am withdrawing this request as Cs32en has provided assurances on their talk page that satisfy my concerns. Jehochman Talk 00:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Ce107 ( talk · contribs), aka 79.166.2.237 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 79.166.48.76 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), ostensibly a new user but with intimate knowledge of prior disputes that marks him as a likely reincarnation of something, has launched into a spree of personal attacks over Greek national issues, against myself and several other editors ("goons" [61], ("Oh I do enjoy insulting people" [62]). Could somebody apply good old WP:ARBMAC (the original) ? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I was told to come here by an adminstrator- "Take it to WP:AE if there is a problem, but at present we just need to handle the existing parties to the case." Hipocrite ( talk) 18:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't engage in forum shopping. You already raised this issue at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG. Jehochman Talk 18:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
No action taken. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
What other banned accounts do you mean? Sandstein 13:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The edits reported in the "request" section are all to the article talk page and are not prima facie disruptive. We do not sanction people for suggesting changes to articles, even where we might disagree with the proposed changes or consider them contrary to policy. The edits, as such, are not sanctionable.
On the other hand, I agree with the assessment that this is a single purpose account for whose conduct sock- or meatpuppetry might be a reasonable explananation. What do others think? Sandstein 20:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I am indefinitely blocking Johninwiki for the edit cited by RxS. Accusing Wikipedia editors of taking part in an alleged murderous conspiracy is quite beyond the pale. To cover the eventuality that he is unblocked, I am also indefinitely topic-banning him from 9/11-related articles, because his conduct indicates that he is not here to contribute to this topic from a neutral point of view. Sandstein 05:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
This dispute seems to be about
According to the source (CBS, Aug. 6, 2006), Jones was at the time "a tenured physicist at Brigham Young University" (he is now Professor emeritus). Cs32en 19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The Guardian refers to Prof. Jones and the other people mentioned in the paragraph of the article as "scholars" [75]. Cs32en 22:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Here are a few diffs showing past efforts to guide this editor away from disruption:
They seem to have had no impact. Other attempts may have been made on article talk pages. Jehochman Talk 23:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, can you explain to me why you are referring to other individual editors as "they": "They came here", "They have a long history", "They are fully on notice"? This approach appears to me as de-personalizing and offensive. Cs32en 23:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The question whether certain people should be described as "scholars" does not call for further discussion here because it is a content dispute, whereas discretionary sanctions are intended to address conduct problems. The "Revising *DISHONEST* deletion" edit summary is incivil, but I have not yet seen evidence that it is characteristic of a pattern of behavior (which would call for sanctions) and not an isolated incident (which would not). Sandstein 08:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.
The hostility [82] and accusations of censorship [83] make WLRoss one of the more difficult editors to work with. I brought this to his attention and he replied here: [84] Tom Harrison Talk 20:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
WLRoss banned from articles and talk pages which relate to the events of September 11 for 1-week. PhilKnight ( talk) 12:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Abtract has been blocked for one month by Kevin ( talk · contribs). Sandstein 07:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have blocked for 1 month, being the maximum available in the remedy. The diff noted above was sufficient of itself, but the spectacular failure of good faith by Abtract above sealed the deal.
Jehochman noted at the time if Abtract's last block that discussion regarding a community ban would be in order at the next violation. I may start that discussion at WP:ANI if I have time. Kevin ( talk) 07:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
3A) Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth.
User has posted to the talk page of the arbitration case on Scientology, this is clearly a violation of the above terms of their topic ban.
The user has self reverted so I'm not sure whether any action is required. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It was his comment on the talk page of the arbitration case that I was referring to, I wasn't aware of any action on the Scientology article. The Legendary Shadow! ( talk) 13:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless repeated or disruptive, I don't think that banning a named party to a RFAR from comment is a good idea, even after the close. Meanwhile, isn't launching AE complaints broadly concerning Scientology articles also topic-blocked under the "and so forth"? (To prevent continuing conflict by other means.) It's best to let all drop, and I'm sure that many admins are keeping an eye out for serious violations. (With that, out of here before I get smacked—but clarification of if the block also extends to AE actions as well would be nice.) AndroidCat ( talk) 14:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Mind you, the requesting user above, The Legendary Shadow!, has been topic-banned by the same ArbCom ( Diff). So I consider her enforcement request as another attempt to stir up trouble and unrest. As I noted on the ArbCom page (that is not an "article" per 3b) of the ArbCom "decision"): there are lies left in this case and that is why it will never get to rest until the discrimination issue is sorted out. Shutterbug ( talk) 20:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Closed without action. This request is not actionable because the "request" section does not contain an actual diff of the conduct alleged to have violated an arbitration decision. Sandstein 06:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
I would firstly express my concern that yet another complaint over Wowest's conduct is being presented to this noticeboard. I am unsure at this point whether the complaint has any substance (a point that I will explore in a little more detail below), but I would invite input from Wowest as to how he feels about being the subject of another complaint (even after my quite clear final warning a few weeks ago).
I would observe that the crux of this complaint seems, to my mind, to be that Wowest's conduct has constituted inappropriate canvassing of other editors. I copy for reference the summary table from Wikipedia:Canvassing, the project's behavioural guideline on this aspect of editor conduct:
Scale | Message | Audience | Transparency | ||||
Friendly notice | Limited posting | AND | Neutral | AND | Nonpartisan | AND | Open |
↕ | ↕ | ↕ | ↕ | ||||
Inappropriate canvassing | Mass posting | OR | Biased | OR | Partisan | OR | Secret |
Term | Excessive cross-posting | Campaigning | Votestacking | Stealth canvassing |
If sanctions are to be placed on Wowest's account as a result of this complaint, I would expect them to be because an administrator thinks his comments to other editors to be "inappropriate canvassing" (in one of its four shades—scale, message, audience, or transparency) rather than a "friendly notice." By extension, the question we ask ought to be whether Wowest's comments are negatively influencing editing in this subject area. I tentatively suggest that I think that may unfortunately be the case.
I would invite the input of other administrators (and, as above, Wowest) on this. AGK 15:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
By posting two messages to a partisan audience, Wowest ( talk · contribs) has not followed WP:CANVASS. The user's messages were limited, neutral, and open. Wowest ( talk · contribs) has apparently not been warned to stop the canvassing before this A/E request has been filed. There is damage to the editing process, but the damage is limited, as the canvassing can be taken into account when evaluating consensus. As sanctions are preventative, they should only be applied if editors continue a form of disruptive behavior after having been warned, or if they resume a form of behaviour about which they have already been warned previously. We certainly would be able to better judge about this case if the user had been warned before this request has been filed. A warning should generally be accompanied by advice on how to proceed without violating policy, i.e., in this case, the possibility of informing all editors who have contributed to related articles irrespective of their views on the issue. Cs32en 16:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear AGK:
This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.