Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
As mentioned in the clarification request above, I was concerned about two reverts to a user's talk page discussing the Arab-Israel conflict that he made during his ban. Multiple reverts are inappropriate especially when there is not a clear line as to where you should or should not be editing. He also broke his topic ban by editing two files. These were actually good edits but since I brought it up at the request for clarification I felt that it is appropriate to bring it up here (it comes across "petty", though).
He also said to take it to AE in his rebuttals to my seconding a request for clarification
Sometimes it appears that he believes he is doing the right thing. Unfortunately, it turned an AfD (which has consensus to keep it looks like) into a mess for whatever admin handles it. It also looks like there is some stress on the talk pages (he wasn't the only one to edit war, though).
I'm a little concerned about the potential violation of his topic ban, but that is more of the principle than anything else. Cptnono ( talk) 06:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed an edit by the sockpuppet of a site-banned user. That is not changing gear, that is something that policy calls for. I restored other edits another editor removed asking that user to go to WP:AE if they felt the editors comments were in violation of their topic-bans. In what way exactly have I violated my topic ban? The other users were out of line in removing peoples edits that were on topic, and I regard those reverts as reversions of vandalism. The moving of information completely off-topic discussing the AfD itself belongs on the talk page of the AfD, it should not be on the AfD page. And the "other editor" who requested clarification has since been blocked as a sockpuppet of the site-banned NoCal100, who had used another sockpuppet to both vote in the AfD and remove Nick and Nishi's edits as those of banned users. In fact one of those sockpuppets was involved in the previous enforcement action against me, I wonder if we will get a chance to see another. nableezy - 06:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll note that AGK's words in the amended decision were I am adjusting my initial sanction of Nableezy, after much consideration. The ban on editing article content is reduced from four months to two; and the ban on editing article talk pages is reduced to one. These times are relative to the initial sanction. which suggests that AGK saw two areas, articles and talk. It is my contention that the AfD falls in "talk", space designated for discussing the article. nableezy - 08:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I want to be clear on why I restored those edits. The only reason I did so is because I felt it was not the place for two involved users to determine what the topic ban includes and how to enforce that topic ban. I repeatedly asked each user to go to WP:AE. At WP:ANI the issue was raised and closed by LessHeard vanU with the comment that This is an WP:AE issue. I told both users that it is not their place to make the determination of whether or not this page is within the topic ban and that WP:AE is the proper venue to make a complaint. They both refused to do so. My removal of User:Mr. Hicks The III's !vote is one that requires no judgment to do, WP:BAN explicitly says that any user may revert the edit of any banned editor. As Hicks was site-banned as the sock of NoCal100, he was clearly banned from that page, that removal is not comparable to the repeated removals of Nick and Nishi's comments. nableezy - 09:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
AGK has clarified that AfD discussions should for the purposes of enforcement of this sanction be treated as article talkpages. nableezy - 02:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
nableezy:
More drama. See Tempest in a teapot. If only people would simply follow the discretionary sanctions. Imagine, the article certainly wouldn't have been nominated for deletion in the first place, topic banned users wouldn't have felt compelled to say something while openly acknowledging their topic bans (which ironically may be unsound anyway thanks to the actions of yet another of the endless line of activist sockpuppets), highly involved non-admins removing comments wouldn't have confused themselves with uninvolved admins, other users wouldn't have felt compelled to reverse the removal (and that wasn't just Nableezy), other users wouldn't have escalated the situation by using dramatic terms like 'poisoned', 'I'm appalled', 'gross disregard'. I thought the sanctions were there to help us 'aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict.' rather than a way to produce more drama. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I suppose 1rr is the way to go from here, but i can't guarantee that there won't be another 3rr thread in two weeks where editors will be hairsplitting this thread, deating whether 1rr applies to removing banned editors' comments, arguing whether the blp-3rr exemption applies to 1rr restrictions, or wikilawyering whether the talk page of a template which has 63.4% blp's falls under the blp exemption. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Tznkai that this seems a bit technical for enforcement. An AfD is a discussion, like a talk page. Perhaps an editor under such a topic ban should only be allowed to comment and not to vote, I don't know. Or maybe they should participate only on the talk page of the AfD (logical, but a bit tedious). Several editors were reverting these comments, including at least one banned sock (plus one anon IP). But, the dispute is the kind you have on a talk page, not the kind you have on an article. Agree with Tznkai also that editors should not be revert warring, ever. User:Jeppiz did the right thing by relaying the important information that needed to be relayed himself, rather than just replacing Nishidani's comment. He recently removed that comment, though I'm not sure why. [14] Another option would be to move the comments to the talk page. People on all sides should look for compromises, not just revert back and forth. Mackan79 ( talk) 22:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
A recent discussion which may provide an overview here. I commend QG for bringing the case before AE of own volition. Unomi ( talk) 17:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion closed at this time. See User talk:Alastair Haines. See history for prior discussion and decision if necessary. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
On April 21, 2008, I was topic-banned for POV-pushing. Although I received no warning, and although this was the first administrative action that had been taken against me since I started editing in July of 2006, the topic-ban is nonetheless indefinite. So I'd like to request that the ban be modified to run out on April 21, 2010. I will then have been banned from 9/11-related pages for exactly two years . Although I have wholly respected the letter of ban (I did not edit the pages), I misunderstood its spirit (I suggested changes to a number of individual editors), which created a bit of disturbance in April of this year. That incident, then, will be about a year old by the time the ban runs out.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 16:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Basboll is not going to change his agenda just because he has been unable to promote his conspiracy theories on this website...if Wikipedia mattered to Basboll, then he could have spent his time topic banned demonstrating his true interest in promoting a NPOV encyclopedia by editing outside his primary area of "interest". He has not done this ...instead he has been contributing a sum total of one edit between May 1 and December 7th of this year...I anticipate that we'll be back to the usual conspiracy theory POV pushing in short order...Basboll has a knack for being very subtle with his agenda...most who haven't bothered to familiarize themselves with his efforts could be easily fooled.-- MONGO 03:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
We already discussed the tenaciousness of his editing back in April... here, where he withdrew his request to be unbanned after it was clear that there little support to allow him to return to this topic. Even his own userpage makes it clear he is a self admitted single purpose account.-- MONGO 04:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't worked on the World Trade Center articles much, but until retirement, I worked as an engineer and I am familiar with some of the techniques used in building failure analysis. I have read portions of the NIST report that have been the subject of much discussion on article talk pages. One of the reasons that I contributed little to the WTC collapse articles was the tendentious editing of Thomas Basboll and others. In my opinion, he is unlikely ever contribute constructively to those articles. I see no reason to rescind his topic ban. If he wishes to contribute constructively, millions of other articles are available. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I certainly hope the intrepid admins who have decided that this latest Randy from Boise needs to be accomodated by other editors with better things to do are going to actually do their jobs - yes, I'm assigning work this time - and evaluate when the sword-skeleton theory has gone overboard. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
As can be seen in the archive I placed a restriction on Brews ohare under one of the Speed of light case remedies about two weeks ago, quoted below verbatim:
Brews ohare is indefinitely restricted from editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. (Exceptions listed below) Brews ohare is restricted from editing any namespaces to begin, or comment on physics related content, disputes stemming from physics-related content, meta-discussion or meta-content (policy, guidelines, essays, polls, RfCs and the like) concerning the editing of scientific topics in general, or physics in particular, or the recognition of minority views. As always, there a recognized exception for Arbitration proceedings concerning the Brews ohare (up to the discretion of the Arbitration Committee and appropriate clerks), as well as as the natural exception for responding to administrative threads seeking to sanction Brews ohare, as well as participating in Arbitration related elections and election discussions. This sanction will be reviewed in two weeks.
In the intervening period Brews O'hare has edited exactly one article, multigrid method. That article is unambiguously within of his general physics topic ban, as it is in the category computational physics. Under that circumstance it is my intention to ban him for a year. Comments are encouraged/-- Tznkai ( talk) 22:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It was considered by Finell and by Count Iblis among others that a purely mathematical article such as Multigrid method did not lie within my ban. It is perfectly obvious that any mathematics has applications: hence the inclusion of this article under category computational physics. However, absolutely no physics is discussed. The article also is in categories numerical analysis and partial differential equations, and any articles in these categories naturally also have ramifications in any science that uses math, which implies in no way that the math is the science. The science uses the math as a tool (just like it uses the English language in English speaking areas) by interpreting its constructions in the manner that the science finds useful, and that attachment of meaning to math symbols and concepts is the actual science part of that application. No such science applications occur in Multigrid method.
Moreover, it is evident that my contributions to this article are very far from controversial, consisting primarily of adding sources with google book links, a few general links to discussions of the material, and some minor reorganizations to accommodate these changes.
My view is that (i) no violation has occurred, and (ii) my actions have been entirely supportive of WP and further its objectives and (iii) no controversy has arisen or is likely to arise over these additions. Any action such as that proposed here by Tznkai is strictly punitive in nature and advances no objective of WP. Brews ohare ( talk) 22:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Strongly oppose a site-wide 1 year ban, any broadening of Brews' topic ban, or any sanction based on Brews' editing of
Multigrid method. It is an article about pure mathematics, specifically a methodology in
numerical analysis used to solve a broad classes of mathematical problems, especially (as the article states) "the numerical solution of
elliptic
partial differential equations in two or more dimensions" (i.e.,
calculus). Like other mathematics, including basic arithmetic, it has very broad practical applications in many fields, including physics, engineering, economics, genetics, and lots else.
Brews' editing of this math article is exactly what all the arbitrators who commented at the last enforcement request, and several administrators, and several other experienced editors have been urging Brews to do. I was delighted when I discovered today that Brews was working on this non-controversial math article, instead of engaging in policy disputes. And the result? Brews took a long neglected article (no edits since April) on advanced mathematics and, in 5 days of methodical editing, he substantially improved and expanded the article. This diff shows just Brews' work on the article through today. Brews appropriately raised a couple issues at Talk:Multigrid method for discussion with other editors, fixed a copyright violation, and otherwise behaved as a model Wikipedian.
Brews should not be sanctioned for this constructive, encyclopedia-building behavior.— Finell 00:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Strongly oppose I can't see any breach of the topic ban here. The subject in question is Numerical analysis which is an applied mathematics subject. Just because physics often uses maths as a language of expression, doesn't mean that maths always has to be physics. Physics uses the English language too. Would you consider it to be a breach of his physics topic ban if he edited at Charles Dickens? Brews was not editing on anything related to physics. Why did anybody even bother to think about punishing Brews for making the edits in question? He was clearly acting in good faith, without causing controversy, and in doing so, helping the project within his area of expertise. It came as a total surprise to me to discover that Tzntai had decided that he wanted to punish Brews for making those good faith edits. I thought I'd seen it all here, but obviously not. David Tombe ( talk) 02:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Strongly oppose - I do not understand why expert help is so unwelcome here. / Pieter Kuiper ( talk) 09:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Virtually all applied mathematics, from addition straight through to vector analysis, is "broadly related to Physics." Exceedingly broad bans are, in my honest opinion, contrary to the reasonable goals of Wikipedia. Collect ( talk) 11:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment – The topic ban never made much sense, since Prof. Brews's behavior issues were not topic specific. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy) : Not applicable
I'll deal with the part of the sentence after the comma first, the claim that "and it has been estimated that tens or even hundreds of thousands died afterwards etc", allegedly sourced by Chomsky and Werner Daum. Chomsky cites two sources, Daum himself and Jonathan Belke (the book is on Google Books, but the preview has an unfortunate habit of saying the pages in question are not part of the preview on occasion, yet showing them on others. Same info is also available here. Belke says "tens of thousands of people", Daum says "several tens of thousands seems a reasonable guess". The "or even hundreds" part is a complete invention by LP, and it really isn't acceptable to increase the estimates by a factor of ten based on your own inventions is it? Also in the main body of the article there's a challenge to those figures, claiming they are "fabricated out of whole cloth" yet this is omitted from LP's addition to the lead as it contradicts his anti-American POV pushing.
More reprehensible is the first part of that sentence, which is not sourced by Chomsky at all. More importantly, it isn't even true. LP's addition claims that "Several hundred employees were killed in the attack", when the death toll (at least according to one source that's frequently cited) was one killed and eleven injured. I'm prepared to accept that adding a source to the sentence would technically negate the need for discussion per Falcon9x5's edit summary, ignoring that LP has wilfully chosen to exaggerate what the source says. However that only applies to the second part of the sentence, as he hasn't added a source for the first part of the sentence.
I would also draw the attention of anyone dealing with this report to this edit, which although not a breach of any sanctions in itself shows LP's editing to be wholly incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia. For anyone unfamiliar with the term "vassal" see vassal or vassal state, and see how inappropriate it is to describe the allies of the United States occupying Iraq post-2003. 2 lines of K 303 14:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Following two blocks last month for violation of remedies, admin
SirFozzie suggested I bring this user up
at ANI. This was done and shows some clear violations of remedies and poor behaviour, however it was autoarchived before anyone did anything with it. Particular problems shown were
this diff which shows a clear violation of the first RfAR as the article contains details of two IRA bombings.
This diff &
this diff which shows intent to continue violating this ban as both these articles contain details of the conflict in NI. Part of LPs second RfAR encouraged them to comment on the content and not on the contributor.
this edit summary shows breach of that. LP has also been engaged in a very long running edit war on the
talk page of Joe Higgins. One of the edit summaries contains
a nasty enough personal attack and they have continued to harangue the editor
here and
here. Also worrying is
this redirect which classifys Israeli settlements as "colonies" (LP has a histroy of anti-israel editing). POV pushing has
continued too. (LP is also anti-US).
GainLine
♠
♥ 17:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick point about my edit summary - I didn't mean for it to be antagonistic (in case it's viewed as such), I simply saw the addition of heavy WP:POV material without a source, and wanted to express my surprise (woah) and ask for a source. I didn't investigate further than asking for a source (and wouldn't have done, as I generally trust if a user can provide a source, it'll back up what it has to). Thanks! Fin © ™ 17:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Pardon the language but fuck...again? I'd advise a one year block at least. They just cannot learn. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I don't know Lapsed Pacifist or anything about the background to his topic ban etc so I can't really comment of those issues. I do however come across his edits fairly frequently in watchlisted articles and I have to say that a complete block would be a pity. This guy makes an astounding number of edits to articles all over the place adding links, fixing small errrors and various other thankless tasks that improve Wikipedia. I wouldn't be at all surprised if on examination the number of good edits outnumbered the number of problematic edits by many orders of magnitude. Maybe it isn't relevant to this discussion but looking at his contributions he appears to be quite significantly improving Wikipedia in an almost bot-like way rather than making it worse. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked Lapsed Pacifist ( talk · contribs) for only 48 hours as the issues presented here are varied and minor. [24] After having looked at many hundreds of diffs, I am far from convinced that long blocks are required this time. In regards to the issue with Snappy, a quick look at the problem indicates that the edit-war should never have happened, and Snappy has been keeping it going. [25] Lapsed Pacifist is under a topic ban and restrictions, but that doesn't mean that he/her is wrong in every instance. Diffs like these [26] [27] [28] [29] are evidence of attempting to discuss the content, and that is what the restrictions are intended to produce. The sourcing issue and the use of "vassals" are more concerning, however they fall into the remedy "Lapsed Pacifist admonished and reminded to be especially careful". John Vandenberg ( chat) 15:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
I probably have made many mistakes on Wikipedia but at the moment I'm compleatly lost what exactly am I accuesed of. So I'm not even sure should I respond to this. In case yes, unfortunately I don't have much more to add to this than what I've already said at ANI. [38], [39], [40], [41]. And perhaps I should spell this out once more: In case anything in those diffs that Fifelfoo has provided is considered disruptive indeed by any uninvolved administrator, he/she is most welcome to take action against my editing privileges as deemed necessary. Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 06:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what campaign Fifelfoo is on. I first became aware of him when he posted his magnum opus pushing his agenda at FA article
Hungarian Revolution of 1956, for example, see his
mind-numbing POV-laden litany on "problems" with sources. There is little I have seen that is constructive in Fifelfoo's edits since, and I regret he has decided to pursue this attempt to control content by attacking editors.
P.S. When editors contend that what reputable sources state is "deceptive" per Fifelfoo's own diffs, that raises red flags that those sources are about to be completely misrepresented.
PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►
talk 05:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Fifelfoo. I note that Vercrumba is mentioned in the Eastern European Mailing List (EEML) arbitration and note that this specific article was mentioned in the arbitration. Numerous EEML emails concerning the editing of this article have been posted on Wikileaks. The Four Deuces ( talk) 07:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Not much to add here, except I support Fifelfoo's request fully. The details are given clearly above. Termer's behaviour seems to be the Wikipedia equivalent of a filibuster: constantly creating confusion and expanding debate to the effect of making progress impossible (it is irrelevant whether this is intentional or not). If there is any case where counselling would be called for, this is it! -- Anderssl ( talk) 07:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't going to comment here, until The Four Deuces attempted to spin some kind of association between Termer and the EEML (which is total BS of course) but illustrates a new Godwin's law style adage: "As an wikipedia discussion grows longer, the probability of claiming an association with the EEML approaches". A couple of points:
If Fifelfoo is really sincere in resolving this, then I suggest formal mediation, rather than engaging in wikiviolence against Termer. -- Martin ( talk) 11:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Content disputes are seldom solved in this manner. Clearly some editors have had opinions about "truth" when placing the article on AfD, and it is similarly clear that those who opposed deletion feel that the article should be retained. The article clearly is not more than tangentially related to Eastern Europe, and using Digwuren as a bed of Procrustes is singularly ill-suited. Termer has been acting in good faith, and the use of comments such as "cherry picks" "intervenes" and citing as evidence that fact that the same editor complained on another board (which may be WP:Forum shopping in any event) makes me more sure than ever that this request is ill-formed at best. Collect ( talk) 15:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The EEML case has nothing, zero, zilch, to do with this case, or any parties concerning it. Dr. Dan ( talk) 04:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, I may start censuring people for throwing around EEML like Colonial Americans used to use the word "witch"-- Tznkai ( talk) 06:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
For the past six months or so Carl has been promoting his latest paper drafts [49] [50] on Denotational semantics. Consequently he has attempted to rewrite the article several times from the perspective of his work, and while he has engaged in initially reasonable discussion on the talk page, he later turned to trolling. He used a large number of IP addresses and at least one registered account. Some of the IP addresses have been blocked by User:Sandstein and the talk page recently semi-protected for two weeks.
I don't know enough about the details of the case, but this appears to be better suited to SPI.-- Tznkai ( talk) 07:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
On April 21, 2008, I was topic-banned for POV-pushing. Although I received no warning, and although this was the first administrative action that had been taken against me since I started editing in July of 2006, the topic-ban is nonetheless indefinite. So I'd like to request that the ban be modified to run out on April 21, 2010. I will then have been banned from 9/11-related pages for exactly two years . Although I have wholly respected the letter of ban (I did not edit the pages), I misunderstood its spirit (I suggested changes to a number of individual editors), which created a bit of disturbance in April of this year. That incident, then, will be about a year old by the time the ban runs out.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 16:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Basboll is not going to change his agenda just because he has been unable to promote his conspiracy theories on this website...if Wikipedia mattered to Basboll, then he could have spent his time topic banned demonstrating his true interest in promoting a NPOV encyclopedia by editing outside his primary area of "interest". He has not done this ...instead he has been contributing a sum total of one edit between
May 1 and December 7th of this year...I anticipate that we'll be back to the usual conspiracy theory POV pushing in short order...Basboll has a knack for being very subtle with his agenda...most who haven't bothered to familiarize themselves with his efforts could be easily fooled.--
MONGO 03:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
We already discussed the tenaciousness of his editing back in April... here, where he withdrew his request to be unbanned after it was clear that there little support to allow him to return to this topic. Even his own userpage makes it clear he is a self admitted single purpose account.-- MONGO 04:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't worked on the World Trade Center articles much, but until retirement, I worked as an engineer and I am familiar with some of the techniques used in building failure analysis. I have read portions of the NIST report that have been the subject of much discussion on article talk pages. One of the reasons that I contributed little to the WTC collapse articles was the tendentious editing of Thomas Basboll and others. In my opinion, he is unlikely ever contribute constructively to those articles. I see no reason to rescind his topic ban. If he wishes to contribute constructively, millions of other articles are available. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I certainly hope the intrepid admins who have decided that this latest Randy from Boise needs to be accomodated by other editors with better things to do are going to actually do their jobs - yes, I'm assigning work this time - and evaluate when the sword-skeleton theory has gone overboard. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I am guessing that everyone concerned would be happier if the month trial doesnt involve the core articles, where even participation in the discussion page can result in disruption. Maybe Thomas could find and nominate a few articles that interest him, and work on them for the first month. Alternative, or he should be prohibited from working on FA or GA articles, and top-importance articles as rated by the 9/11 wikiproject.
back in April, I recommended that Thomas work on articles around this topic, rather than the main contentious articles. [51] I mentioned Operation Northwoods, World Trade Center (PATH station), Minoru Yamasaki, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, but I am sure that there are a number of articles which deeply interest him, and are currently in need of improvement. e.g. Conspiracy Theory (TV series), 911: In Plane Site, A Few Days in September, Mystery of the Urinal Deuce. John Vandenberg ( chat) 05:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Im so sorry, I suppose I should have left an "encyclopedia" article saying that the PLO was founded on Mars to liberate Palestine by wearing festive hats. An "extended block" for reverting vandalism would be so very fitting. nableezy - 02:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
@Tznaki, I wont, but perhaps User:Plot Spoiler, previously named ShamWow, could use formal notification of the ARBPIA case. nableezy - 03:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Cptnono, the only ridiculous thing here is that somebody actually requested a block for removing vandalism. Piss off. nableezy - 14:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Stellarkid, no you cannot say the same things about Muslims or Arabs. That user should not have said that, and combining the edit summary with the edit I felt, and still feel, that it was vandalism. The very diff you cite has already been addressed by Tznaki, there is no "flouting the sanctions with impunity" and to say that I have been doing so is plainly bogus. Can somebody archive this already? nableezy - 19:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This comes after Tznkai's call. nableezy has without a doubt circumvented sanctions a minimum of 5 times. A couple were files. One was an AfD a day before being unblocked. One of them was blatant vandalism. Another had a pretty crappy edit summary but was not necessarily a bad edit. Others (4 maybe?) were only "broadly" interpreted as being related. A couple were simply edit wars on talk pages that were only related to the topic. This does not excuse it. Harmless enough at first glance but they are still violations and a couple of them caused serious discussion. They even caused edit warring, requests for clarification, and requests for enforcement. A sanction is a sanction. He was not sanctioned to "not edit Arab-Israel when it might hurt feelings" He was sanctioned not to edit them at all. To punctuate this ridiculousness, Tznkai disregarded edit warring a few days ago (literally a few days!). How can you work on this project that has a disclaimer on potential long term blocks and not be concerned about edit warring? Edit warring is edit warring. As I called out Nableezy to get my sanction I will call out Tznkai: How can you clerk here and not see a concern? Wikiphilosiphy aside, there is an obvious problem and you bring your position into question. I feel that you have proven that you do not deserve/can handle/want the responsibility. If you aren't going to block (which is honestly OK by me) at least clearly say KNOCK IT OFF. You haven't done that twice now. Cptnono ( talk) 11:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I did not earlier see the comment "No one believes in your Jewish B.S" but I will just say that that type of bigotry has no place on WP, and points to serious problems collaborating with fellow Wikipedians in this area. Can I also expect to get a pass for saying the same except inserting "Muslim" or "Palestinian" or "Arab"???
Not all Nor were the edits were all reversions of vandalism --
[57] It seems clear that Nableezy is flouting the sanctions with impunity.
Stellarkid (
talk) 17:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Who's kidding who?
What wholesome or constructive rationale informs this new development? The continuing monogatari of needless folly just gets worse and worse -- and to what end?
It becomes reasonable to ask a meaningful and timely question: How does any part of this complaint enhance prospects for Wikipedia's future or for the community of volunteer contributors?
The answer needs to be stated bluntly: This helps no one. It confuses and discourages me.
In this investigative process, four crucial elements establish a context:
FACT #1: A prirori, ArbCom refused to answer explicit questions about what was and what was not encompassed with the ambit of ArbCom's decision-making in June and thereafter.
Fact #2: A posteriori, ArbCom then ratcheted up penalties because something not clearly identified was deemed to have failed to comply with what I couldn't have known was problematic before November, during November or thereafter.
Fact #3: Although ArbCom may have intended who-knows-what, the only words available to me in December were these:
And, if I'm understanding the complaint adequately, the one and only article I'm accused of wrongly editing was Wikipedia:Mentorship?
Fact #4: The narrowly-focused text which I researched and then added to Wikipedia:Mentorship does advance the "express purpose of locating a mentor"; but I don't understand why that isn't so obvious that it does not require further explanation. This reasonable assertion and belief is confirmed by Tenmei's contribution history which lists postings on pages of those who participated in the development of the article and its accompanying talk page:
In addition, further edits of this practical text are likely to contrive both (a) a shared-opportunity to work constructively with prospective mentors, thus creating a plausibly meaningful and persuasive working relationship which grows in an unforced way; and (b) a rhetorical foundation from which an unofficial mentorship committee may evolve naturally in a step-by-step fashion. This prospect encompasses those who are tentatively willing to try to help me, but who remain unwilling to enter into a formal ArbCom-endorsed relationship with its unknowable range of unanticipated pitfalls.
My limited, but unhappy experience with ArbCom's imprecise language is underscored by Penwhale's untimely and unmerited complaint.
In the context Penwhale contrives, any reluctance to help me officially seems both justified and prudent. What else is anyone to make of this newly contrived tempest in a teapot?
Anyone would be justifiably reluctant to thrust himself or herself into this problem-prone rhetorical maw or quagmire. The fact that I did so only serves to illustrate my ignorance, my innocence, my naivité and my sincere search for answers to questions which could be addressed in no other way -- none of which cause me to feel embarrassed.
Based solely on this newest "event", who can doubt that ArbCom was unable to recruit anyone to serve as a mentor at this stage of Wikipedia's development? But in passing the buck to me, did ArbCom truly want to contrive impossiblilty of performance as well?
In my view, this six-month history of ArbCom failure should be construed to argue in favor of giving me a realistic chance to try to comply with ArbCom's flawed decision. Instead, Penwhale's heedless complaint serves only to make my recruiting task more difficult.
Again, it is incumbent on me to ask, "Who's kidding who?"
While I presume no impropriety in Penwhale's complaint, it becomes impossible not to contemplate a range searching questions which need to be addressed in an effort to bring a better sense of balance to ArbCom's flawed presumptions, flawed procedures and flawed process.
In other words, I create a timely opportunity by asking this question: Given the inescapable fact that this newest sham is afflicting my patience and my efforts and also the view-point of any prospective ArbCom-endorsed "mentor", I have no choice but to assume that ArbCom's flaws devolve into an even more bizarre spectacle for those who are less confident, less innocent, less careful or less attentive to detail.
On my behalf and theirs, I must ask now: Why is this happening?
I would hope that the following will help enhance ArbCom to comprehend broad extent to which the phrase "Who's kidding who?" conveys a meaning that is idiomatic and clear at the same time.
|
|
Broadly, what purpose does this "enforcement" inquiry serve?
Narrowly, what purpose does an "enforcement" investigation serve?
Explicitly: (a) How is this congruent with the adduced principles and findings of the ArbCom case? (b) What am I to make of this? (c) What is any prospective mentor to make of this?
What other questions does this implicate?
What do I still fail to understand about what is going on here? And why isn't ArbCom doing more to help me understand? -- Tenmei ( talk) 10:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
For information, I have just blocked Tenmei for one week for breaching his editing restrictions, disabled his talk page, and asked him to contact the committee by email (he has our address). My apologies for sidestepping this noticebaord's processes on this particular occasion. Roger Davies talk 12:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
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.
Abd is prohibited from participating in discussion of any dispute in which he is not one of the originating parties, unless approved by his mentor(s). This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution. He would be allowed to vote or comment at polls.
No disruptive intention existed. I was indeed involved in the climate change dispute, as can be seen by the evidence referred to on my Talk page, that's just a fact, not wikilawyering. I appreciate MastCell's effort to avoid disruption, and if the statement filed with the RfAr is disruptive, I'd certainly defer to the judgment of a clerk or an arbitrator. I have no intention of further comment on this case unless requested by an arbitrator, or the case is opened and the matter of my permission to participate is resolved in some way. GoRight and I had previously discussed mentorship, before the present case was ever filed. I'm a little surprised, though, that MastCell would file this AE case so quickly, I'd have thought that more disruptive than what already existed, and I asked Mathsci to refrain from further posting to my talk page precisely to avoid useless argument. But if MastCell personally considers the Arbcomm statement itself disruptive, he's welcome to remove the comment, and I presume a clerk or arbitrator would adjudicate that. I won't personally contest it, and, if blocked, will not put up an unblock template, or at least not immediately. -- Abd ( talk) 01:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
As far as formal mentorship, I don't see any provision for that in the ArbCom decision. The mentorship proposals were voted down, with many Arbs expressing the opinion that they would be ineffective in your situation. As such, if you have any plans to cite a mentor when violating this editing restriction in the future, please clear that mentorship with ArbCom ahead of time. Having a close compatriot declare himself your informal "mentor" and excuse violations of your editing restrictions seems inappropriate. MastCell Talk 01:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Abd has not so far been involved in editing WP articles on climate change, or their talk pages. In the diff provided above by MastCell, Abd writes on his talk page that he is "involved" in climate change, but only in his private life and thoughts, not yet on wikipedia. That kind of statement is unhelpful and disruptive. A claimed wikifriendship with GoRight ( talk · contribs) cannot be used to justify contravening the current ArbCom editing restrictions. He seems to be testing the limits of his ArbCom restrictions within the first 3 weeks that they came into force (after his 3 month ban was lifted on Dec 13th). Mathsci ( talk) 01:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I refer all involved to the actual text of Abd's editing restriction,
found here:
The text of the resolution clearly states that Abd may participate as long as his mentors approve. Even at the time it had been suggested that I might fill such a role for him. Until he makes a more formal declaration in selecting a mentor, I have agreed to fulfill that function. Taking due consideration of not only his involvement in my RfC which covers almost exactly this same topic area as well as the same participants, I believe that Abd has also made edits to GW pages himself so I fail to see how one can argue that he is not involved. Therefore I have consented to his participation. -- GoRight ( talk) 02:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Actually when ArbCom voted, they voted against any kind of mentorship for Abd 2 and 2.1, voluntary or involuntary. The drafting of the final decision (by Stephen Bain) was not as careful as it could have been. This was pointed out on the talk pages of the ArbCom case, but the corresponding minor correction to the editing restriction was not made before the final version was posted. Only narrow wikilawyering would ignore the two votes of ArbCom against mentorship. From his actions here and his statements since his unblock, it seems Abd is still gaming the system and is deliberately refusing to understand ArbCom's intent. There was no agreed proposal for Abd to have a mentor, no matter how much Abd tries to twist ArbCom's statements. Other wikipedians will also note the irony of Abd accepting as his mentor an offer from an WP:SPA with hardly any namespace editing experience (< 600 edits to articles, 12% of his contributions), himself under a community topic ban. It's fairly easy to get a clarification in case the interpretation of the editing restrictions continues to be challenged. Mathsci ( talk) 06:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Arbcomm violations continue: [71] William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
I could provide any number of these: all of his edits in the last week are on physics related pages or relate to those pages.
The article Bivector is a mathematics article that I created in response to discussion among other parties on Talk: p-vector. No physics discussion takes place in Bivector, although many possible applications of this topic to physics do exist, and I invited JohnBlackburne to discuss them in the article. (He has not.) No sanction against me has been violated, and this article constitutes a worthy addition to WP, indicating my good faith efforts to improve WP.
The present situation resembles in some ways the earlier restriction review, which also revolved about a distinction between math and science. That review is about to be updated, and presumably can include JohnBlackburne's complaint. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, the article Bivector as it now stands is fairly complete, apart from example applications that I cannot add due to sanctions, and I have no more mathematics to add to it. So I'd guess there is little need for administrative intervention in this matter. Brews ohare ( talk) 18:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
JohnBlackburne wishes to raise the issue of my competence to write this article. My competence is a matter separate from violation of sanctions, which should be separately conducted. Although this charge is not relevant here, I wish to point out that no evidence is provided that the present article Bivector in any way presents incorrect arguments. The many sources I have provided to support various points seem necessary in view of the challenges brought by JohnBlackburne, which challenges of his he has universally abandoned on Talk: Bivector upon his further reflection. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Dicklyon says: "He edits fast and furious, adding his own interpretations of things, and won't slow down enough to allow space to incorporate the views of others. He makes collaboration impossible, ignoring the input of people". I find these remarks at variance with the evidence on Talk: Bivector, which shows I have fully addressed JohnBlackburne's observations and provided civil, sourced, and extensive response to him, including some direct questions to him about his views. My editing has not in any way impeded collaboration: rather, attempts at collaboration have been impeded by JohnBlackburne's failure to address my responses to and direct questions about his views and, instead of engaging in shaping the article, filing this complaint. Brews ohare ( talk) 03:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
JohnBlackburne and MathSci have raised once more the issue of my competence and suggested that I "make up" material and irrelevantly scatter sources about in my ramblings - a little essay concocted off the top of his head. Really! The basis for these extravagant charges is that to write an article on bivectors in R3 is unencyclopedic and unhelpful; in other words, whatever its accuracy and documentation, the article is insufficiently general for these gentlemen, who prefer the usual completely unsourced gobbledygook of many math articles, such as Rotor (mathematics) & Blade (geometry). Naturally, my inclusion of sources irks them. I do not believe such charges have any bearing on this particular hearing. I would be very happy to defend my competence on the math project page or in an RfC directed at my contributions to the content of Bivector. However, in the context of the present hearing, these allegations are (i) slander (ii) unsupported (iii) invalid & (iv) totally irrelevant to this hearing which is about allegations of violation of my sanctions. Brews ohare ( talk) 23:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I have not made more than a cursory glance through Brews' recent activity but what I saw did not seem overly disruptive to me: a dispute is not necessarily someone causing a nuisance. However, even if it was there are other avenues that would be better pursued than this. His contribution record does not reveal him to have recently breached his topic ban. If further action needs taking against him then people should go through the proper channels rather than attempting to short-circuit the process by applying his sanction in an inappropriate manner. CrispMuncher ( talk) 21:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Purely an individual opinion. The complaint and discussion seems side-tracked on the topic ban issue. However, some editors have commented that while the topic ban does not apply, there are continuing behavioral patterns that need to be addressed. I would ask that editors and any reviewing administrators consider this core aspect of the situation, rather than focus purely on the regulatory details of a topic restriction. Either there is a continuing problematic pattern of behavior, or there is not. If it is establish that there is an ongoing problem, Brews ohare is under a general conduct probation. Any uninvolved administrator may implement (as examples):
Any number of editing conditions and sanctions can be imposed in order to provide any necessary boundaries and/or imposed guidance. The discussion should focus on whether or not there is a ongoing pattern of problematic conduct. If there is a continuing issue, focus on what conditions will help provide Brews ohare with the guidance and boundaries necessary and best insulate the project from disruption. Vassyana ( talk) 02:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
As mentioned in the clarification request above, I was concerned about two reverts to a user's talk page discussing the Arab-Israel conflict that he made during his ban. Multiple reverts are inappropriate especially when there is not a clear line as to where you should or should not be editing. He also broke his topic ban by editing two files. These were actually good edits but since I brought it up at the request for clarification I felt that it is appropriate to bring it up here (it comes across "petty", though).
He also said to take it to AE in his rebuttals to my seconding a request for clarification
Sometimes it appears that he believes he is doing the right thing. Unfortunately, it turned an AfD (which has consensus to keep it looks like) into a mess for whatever admin handles it. It also looks like there is some stress on the talk pages (he wasn't the only one to edit war, though).
I'm a little concerned about the potential violation of his topic ban, but that is more of the principle than anything else. Cptnono ( talk) 06:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed an edit by the sockpuppet of a site-banned user. That is not changing gear, that is something that policy calls for. I restored other edits another editor removed asking that user to go to WP:AE if they felt the editors comments were in violation of their topic-bans. In what way exactly have I violated my topic ban? The other users were out of line in removing peoples edits that were on topic, and I regard those reverts as reversions of vandalism. The moving of information completely off-topic discussing the AfD itself belongs on the talk page of the AfD, it should not be on the AfD page. And the "other editor" who requested clarification has since been blocked as a sockpuppet of the site-banned NoCal100, who had used another sockpuppet to both vote in the AfD and remove Nick and Nishi's edits as those of banned users. In fact one of those sockpuppets was involved in the previous enforcement action against me, I wonder if we will get a chance to see another. nableezy - 06:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll note that AGK's words in the amended decision were I am adjusting my initial sanction of Nableezy, after much consideration. The ban on editing article content is reduced from four months to two; and the ban on editing article talk pages is reduced to one. These times are relative to the initial sanction. which suggests that AGK saw two areas, articles and talk. It is my contention that the AfD falls in "talk", space designated for discussing the article. nableezy - 08:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I want to be clear on why I restored those edits. The only reason I did so is because I felt it was not the place for two involved users to determine what the topic ban includes and how to enforce that topic ban. I repeatedly asked each user to go to WP:AE. At WP:ANI the issue was raised and closed by LessHeard vanU with the comment that This is an WP:AE issue. I told both users that it is not their place to make the determination of whether or not this page is within the topic ban and that WP:AE is the proper venue to make a complaint. They both refused to do so. My removal of User:Mr. Hicks The III's !vote is one that requires no judgment to do, WP:BAN explicitly says that any user may revert the edit of any banned editor. As Hicks was site-banned as the sock of NoCal100, he was clearly banned from that page, that removal is not comparable to the repeated removals of Nick and Nishi's comments. nableezy - 09:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
AGK has clarified that AfD discussions should for the purposes of enforcement of this sanction be treated as article talkpages. nableezy - 02:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
nableezy:
More drama. See Tempest in a teapot. If only people would simply follow the discretionary sanctions. Imagine, the article certainly wouldn't have been nominated for deletion in the first place, topic banned users wouldn't have felt compelled to say something while openly acknowledging their topic bans (which ironically may be unsound anyway thanks to the actions of yet another of the endless line of activist sockpuppets), highly involved non-admins removing comments wouldn't have confused themselves with uninvolved admins, other users wouldn't have felt compelled to reverse the removal (and that wasn't just Nableezy), other users wouldn't have escalated the situation by using dramatic terms like 'poisoned', 'I'm appalled', 'gross disregard'. I thought the sanctions were there to help us 'aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict.' rather than a way to produce more drama. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I suppose 1rr is the way to go from here, but i can't guarantee that there won't be another 3rr thread in two weeks where editors will be hairsplitting this thread, deating whether 1rr applies to removing banned editors' comments, arguing whether the blp-3rr exemption applies to 1rr restrictions, or wikilawyering whether the talk page of a template which has 63.4% blp's falls under the blp exemption. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Tznkai that this seems a bit technical for enforcement. An AfD is a discussion, like a talk page. Perhaps an editor under such a topic ban should only be allowed to comment and not to vote, I don't know. Or maybe they should participate only on the talk page of the AfD (logical, but a bit tedious). Several editors were reverting these comments, including at least one banned sock (plus one anon IP). But, the dispute is the kind you have on a talk page, not the kind you have on an article. Agree with Tznkai also that editors should not be revert warring, ever. User:Jeppiz did the right thing by relaying the important information that needed to be relayed himself, rather than just replacing Nishidani's comment. He recently removed that comment, though I'm not sure why. [14] Another option would be to move the comments to the talk page. People on all sides should look for compromises, not just revert back and forth. Mackan79 ( talk) 22:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
A recent discussion which may provide an overview here. I commend QG for bringing the case before AE of own volition. Unomi ( talk) 17:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion closed at this time. See User talk:Alastair Haines. See history for prior discussion and decision if necessary. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
On April 21, 2008, I was topic-banned for POV-pushing. Although I received no warning, and although this was the first administrative action that had been taken against me since I started editing in July of 2006, the topic-ban is nonetheless indefinite. So I'd like to request that the ban be modified to run out on April 21, 2010. I will then have been banned from 9/11-related pages for exactly two years . Although I have wholly respected the letter of ban (I did not edit the pages), I misunderstood its spirit (I suggested changes to a number of individual editors), which created a bit of disturbance in April of this year. That incident, then, will be about a year old by the time the ban runs out.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 16:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Basboll is not going to change his agenda just because he has been unable to promote his conspiracy theories on this website...if Wikipedia mattered to Basboll, then he could have spent his time topic banned demonstrating his true interest in promoting a NPOV encyclopedia by editing outside his primary area of "interest". He has not done this ...instead he has been contributing a sum total of one edit between May 1 and December 7th of this year...I anticipate that we'll be back to the usual conspiracy theory POV pushing in short order...Basboll has a knack for being very subtle with his agenda...most who haven't bothered to familiarize themselves with his efforts could be easily fooled.-- MONGO 03:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
We already discussed the tenaciousness of his editing back in April... here, where he withdrew his request to be unbanned after it was clear that there little support to allow him to return to this topic. Even his own userpage makes it clear he is a self admitted single purpose account.-- MONGO 04:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't worked on the World Trade Center articles much, but until retirement, I worked as an engineer and I am familiar with some of the techniques used in building failure analysis. I have read portions of the NIST report that have been the subject of much discussion on article talk pages. One of the reasons that I contributed little to the WTC collapse articles was the tendentious editing of Thomas Basboll and others. In my opinion, he is unlikely ever contribute constructively to those articles. I see no reason to rescind his topic ban. If he wishes to contribute constructively, millions of other articles are available. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I certainly hope the intrepid admins who have decided that this latest Randy from Boise needs to be accomodated by other editors with better things to do are going to actually do their jobs - yes, I'm assigning work this time - and evaluate when the sword-skeleton theory has gone overboard. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
As can be seen in the archive I placed a restriction on Brews ohare under one of the Speed of light case remedies about two weeks ago, quoted below verbatim:
Brews ohare is indefinitely restricted from editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. (Exceptions listed below) Brews ohare is restricted from editing any namespaces to begin, or comment on physics related content, disputes stemming from physics-related content, meta-discussion or meta-content (policy, guidelines, essays, polls, RfCs and the like) concerning the editing of scientific topics in general, or physics in particular, or the recognition of minority views. As always, there a recognized exception for Arbitration proceedings concerning the Brews ohare (up to the discretion of the Arbitration Committee and appropriate clerks), as well as as the natural exception for responding to administrative threads seeking to sanction Brews ohare, as well as participating in Arbitration related elections and election discussions. This sanction will be reviewed in two weeks.
In the intervening period Brews O'hare has edited exactly one article, multigrid method. That article is unambiguously within of his general physics topic ban, as it is in the category computational physics. Under that circumstance it is my intention to ban him for a year. Comments are encouraged/-- Tznkai ( talk) 22:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It was considered by Finell and by Count Iblis among others that a purely mathematical article such as Multigrid method did not lie within my ban. It is perfectly obvious that any mathematics has applications: hence the inclusion of this article under category computational physics. However, absolutely no physics is discussed. The article also is in categories numerical analysis and partial differential equations, and any articles in these categories naturally also have ramifications in any science that uses math, which implies in no way that the math is the science. The science uses the math as a tool (just like it uses the English language in English speaking areas) by interpreting its constructions in the manner that the science finds useful, and that attachment of meaning to math symbols and concepts is the actual science part of that application. No such science applications occur in Multigrid method.
Moreover, it is evident that my contributions to this article are very far from controversial, consisting primarily of adding sources with google book links, a few general links to discussions of the material, and some minor reorganizations to accommodate these changes.
My view is that (i) no violation has occurred, and (ii) my actions have been entirely supportive of WP and further its objectives and (iii) no controversy has arisen or is likely to arise over these additions. Any action such as that proposed here by Tznkai is strictly punitive in nature and advances no objective of WP. Brews ohare ( talk) 22:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Strongly oppose a site-wide 1 year ban, any broadening of Brews' topic ban, or any sanction based on Brews' editing of
Multigrid method. It is an article about pure mathematics, specifically a methodology in
numerical analysis used to solve a broad classes of mathematical problems, especially (as the article states) "the numerical solution of
elliptic
partial differential equations in two or more dimensions" (i.e.,
calculus). Like other mathematics, including basic arithmetic, it has very broad practical applications in many fields, including physics, engineering, economics, genetics, and lots else.
Brews' editing of this math article is exactly what all the arbitrators who commented at the last enforcement request, and several administrators, and several other experienced editors have been urging Brews to do. I was delighted when I discovered today that Brews was working on this non-controversial math article, instead of engaging in policy disputes. And the result? Brews took a long neglected article (no edits since April) on advanced mathematics and, in 5 days of methodical editing, he substantially improved and expanded the article. This diff shows just Brews' work on the article through today. Brews appropriately raised a couple issues at Talk:Multigrid method for discussion with other editors, fixed a copyright violation, and otherwise behaved as a model Wikipedian.
Brews should not be sanctioned for this constructive, encyclopedia-building behavior.— Finell 00:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Strongly oppose I can't see any breach of the topic ban here. The subject in question is Numerical analysis which is an applied mathematics subject. Just because physics often uses maths as a language of expression, doesn't mean that maths always has to be physics. Physics uses the English language too. Would you consider it to be a breach of his physics topic ban if he edited at Charles Dickens? Brews was not editing on anything related to physics. Why did anybody even bother to think about punishing Brews for making the edits in question? He was clearly acting in good faith, without causing controversy, and in doing so, helping the project within his area of expertise. It came as a total surprise to me to discover that Tzntai had decided that he wanted to punish Brews for making those good faith edits. I thought I'd seen it all here, but obviously not. David Tombe ( talk) 02:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Strongly oppose - I do not understand why expert help is so unwelcome here. / Pieter Kuiper ( talk) 09:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Virtually all applied mathematics, from addition straight through to vector analysis, is "broadly related to Physics." Exceedingly broad bans are, in my honest opinion, contrary to the reasonable goals of Wikipedia. Collect ( talk) 11:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment – The topic ban never made much sense, since Prof. Brews's behavior issues were not topic specific. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy) : Not applicable
I'll deal with the part of the sentence after the comma first, the claim that "and it has been estimated that tens or even hundreds of thousands died afterwards etc", allegedly sourced by Chomsky and Werner Daum. Chomsky cites two sources, Daum himself and Jonathan Belke (the book is on Google Books, but the preview has an unfortunate habit of saying the pages in question are not part of the preview on occasion, yet showing them on others. Same info is also available here. Belke says "tens of thousands of people", Daum says "several tens of thousands seems a reasonable guess". The "or even hundreds" part is a complete invention by LP, and it really isn't acceptable to increase the estimates by a factor of ten based on your own inventions is it? Also in the main body of the article there's a challenge to those figures, claiming they are "fabricated out of whole cloth" yet this is omitted from LP's addition to the lead as it contradicts his anti-American POV pushing.
More reprehensible is the first part of that sentence, which is not sourced by Chomsky at all. More importantly, it isn't even true. LP's addition claims that "Several hundred employees were killed in the attack", when the death toll (at least according to one source that's frequently cited) was one killed and eleven injured. I'm prepared to accept that adding a source to the sentence would technically negate the need for discussion per Falcon9x5's edit summary, ignoring that LP has wilfully chosen to exaggerate what the source says. However that only applies to the second part of the sentence, as he hasn't added a source for the first part of the sentence.
I would also draw the attention of anyone dealing with this report to this edit, which although not a breach of any sanctions in itself shows LP's editing to be wholly incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia. For anyone unfamiliar with the term "vassal" see vassal or vassal state, and see how inappropriate it is to describe the allies of the United States occupying Iraq post-2003. 2 lines of K 303 14:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Following two blocks last month for violation of remedies, admin
SirFozzie suggested I bring this user up
at ANI. This was done and shows some clear violations of remedies and poor behaviour, however it was autoarchived before anyone did anything with it. Particular problems shown were
this diff which shows a clear violation of the first RfAR as the article contains details of two IRA bombings.
This diff &
this diff which shows intent to continue violating this ban as both these articles contain details of the conflict in NI. Part of LPs second RfAR encouraged them to comment on the content and not on the contributor.
this edit summary shows breach of that. LP has also been engaged in a very long running edit war on the
talk page of Joe Higgins. One of the edit summaries contains
a nasty enough personal attack and they have continued to harangue the editor
here and
here. Also worrying is
this redirect which classifys Israeli settlements as "colonies" (LP has a histroy of anti-israel editing). POV pushing has
continued too. (LP is also anti-US).
GainLine
♠
♥ 17:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick point about my edit summary - I didn't mean for it to be antagonistic (in case it's viewed as such), I simply saw the addition of heavy WP:POV material without a source, and wanted to express my surprise (woah) and ask for a source. I didn't investigate further than asking for a source (and wouldn't have done, as I generally trust if a user can provide a source, it'll back up what it has to). Thanks! Fin © ™ 17:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Pardon the language but fuck...again? I'd advise a one year block at least. They just cannot learn. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I don't know Lapsed Pacifist or anything about the background to his topic ban etc so I can't really comment of those issues. I do however come across his edits fairly frequently in watchlisted articles and I have to say that a complete block would be a pity. This guy makes an astounding number of edits to articles all over the place adding links, fixing small errrors and various other thankless tasks that improve Wikipedia. I wouldn't be at all surprised if on examination the number of good edits outnumbered the number of problematic edits by many orders of magnitude. Maybe it isn't relevant to this discussion but looking at his contributions he appears to be quite significantly improving Wikipedia in an almost bot-like way rather than making it worse. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked Lapsed Pacifist ( talk · contribs) for only 48 hours as the issues presented here are varied and minor. [24] After having looked at many hundreds of diffs, I am far from convinced that long blocks are required this time. In regards to the issue with Snappy, a quick look at the problem indicates that the edit-war should never have happened, and Snappy has been keeping it going. [25] Lapsed Pacifist is under a topic ban and restrictions, but that doesn't mean that he/her is wrong in every instance. Diffs like these [26] [27] [28] [29] are evidence of attempting to discuss the content, and that is what the restrictions are intended to produce. The sourcing issue and the use of "vassals" are more concerning, however they fall into the remedy "Lapsed Pacifist admonished and reminded to be especially careful". John Vandenberg ( chat) 15:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
I probably have made many mistakes on Wikipedia but at the moment I'm compleatly lost what exactly am I accuesed of. So I'm not even sure should I respond to this. In case yes, unfortunately I don't have much more to add to this than what I've already said at ANI. [38], [39], [40], [41]. And perhaps I should spell this out once more: In case anything in those diffs that Fifelfoo has provided is considered disruptive indeed by any uninvolved administrator, he/she is most welcome to take action against my editing privileges as deemed necessary. Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 06:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what campaign Fifelfoo is on. I first became aware of him when he posted his magnum opus pushing his agenda at FA article
Hungarian Revolution of 1956, for example, see his
mind-numbing POV-laden litany on "problems" with sources. There is little I have seen that is constructive in Fifelfoo's edits since, and I regret he has decided to pursue this attempt to control content by attacking editors.
P.S. When editors contend that what reputable sources state is "deceptive" per Fifelfoo's own diffs, that raises red flags that those sources are about to be completely misrepresented.
PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►
talk 05:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Fifelfoo. I note that Vercrumba is mentioned in the Eastern European Mailing List (EEML) arbitration and note that this specific article was mentioned in the arbitration. Numerous EEML emails concerning the editing of this article have been posted on Wikileaks. The Four Deuces ( talk) 07:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Not much to add here, except I support Fifelfoo's request fully. The details are given clearly above. Termer's behaviour seems to be the Wikipedia equivalent of a filibuster: constantly creating confusion and expanding debate to the effect of making progress impossible (it is irrelevant whether this is intentional or not). If there is any case where counselling would be called for, this is it! -- Anderssl ( talk) 07:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't going to comment here, until The Four Deuces attempted to spin some kind of association between Termer and the EEML (which is total BS of course) but illustrates a new Godwin's law style adage: "As an wikipedia discussion grows longer, the probability of claiming an association with the EEML approaches". A couple of points:
If Fifelfoo is really sincere in resolving this, then I suggest formal mediation, rather than engaging in wikiviolence against Termer. -- Martin ( talk) 11:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Content disputes are seldom solved in this manner. Clearly some editors have had opinions about "truth" when placing the article on AfD, and it is similarly clear that those who opposed deletion feel that the article should be retained. The article clearly is not more than tangentially related to Eastern Europe, and using Digwuren as a bed of Procrustes is singularly ill-suited. Termer has been acting in good faith, and the use of comments such as "cherry picks" "intervenes" and citing as evidence that fact that the same editor complained on another board (which may be WP:Forum shopping in any event) makes me more sure than ever that this request is ill-formed at best. Collect ( talk) 15:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The EEML case has nothing, zero, zilch, to do with this case, or any parties concerning it. Dr. Dan ( talk) 04:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, I may start censuring people for throwing around EEML like Colonial Americans used to use the word "witch"-- Tznkai ( talk) 06:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
For the past six months or so Carl has been promoting his latest paper drafts [49] [50] on Denotational semantics. Consequently he has attempted to rewrite the article several times from the perspective of his work, and while he has engaged in initially reasonable discussion on the talk page, he later turned to trolling. He used a large number of IP addresses and at least one registered account. Some of the IP addresses have been blocked by User:Sandstein and the talk page recently semi-protected for two weeks.
I don't know enough about the details of the case, but this appears to be better suited to SPI.-- Tznkai ( talk) 07:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
On April 21, 2008, I was topic-banned for POV-pushing. Although I received no warning, and although this was the first administrative action that had been taken against me since I started editing in July of 2006, the topic-ban is nonetheless indefinite. So I'd like to request that the ban be modified to run out on April 21, 2010. I will then have been banned from 9/11-related pages for exactly two years . Although I have wholly respected the letter of ban (I did not edit the pages), I misunderstood its spirit (I suggested changes to a number of individual editors), which created a bit of disturbance in April of this year. That incident, then, will be about a year old by the time the ban runs out.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 16:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Basboll is not going to change his agenda just because he has been unable to promote his conspiracy theories on this website...if Wikipedia mattered to Basboll, then he could have spent his time topic banned demonstrating his true interest in promoting a NPOV encyclopedia by editing outside his primary area of "interest". He has not done this ...instead he has been contributing a sum total of one edit between
May 1 and December 7th of this year...I anticipate that we'll be back to the usual conspiracy theory POV pushing in short order...Basboll has a knack for being very subtle with his agenda...most who haven't bothered to familiarize themselves with his efforts could be easily fooled.--
MONGO 03:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
We already discussed the tenaciousness of his editing back in April... here, where he withdrew his request to be unbanned after it was clear that there little support to allow him to return to this topic. Even his own userpage makes it clear he is a self admitted single purpose account.-- MONGO 04:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't worked on the World Trade Center articles much, but until retirement, I worked as an engineer and I am familiar with some of the techniques used in building failure analysis. I have read portions of the NIST report that have been the subject of much discussion on article talk pages. One of the reasons that I contributed little to the WTC collapse articles was the tendentious editing of Thomas Basboll and others. In my opinion, he is unlikely ever contribute constructively to those articles. I see no reason to rescind his topic ban. If he wishes to contribute constructively, millions of other articles are available. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I certainly hope the intrepid admins who have decided that this latest Randy from Boise needs to be accomodated by other editors with better things to do are going to actually do their jobs - yes, I'm assigning work this time - and evaluate when the sword-skeleton theory has gone overboard. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I am guessing that everyone concerned would be happier if the month trial doesnt involve the core articles, where even participation in the discussion page can result in disruption. Maybe Thomas could find and nominate a few articles that interest him, and work on them for the first month. Alternative, or he should be prohibited from working on FA or GA articles, and top-importance articles as rated by the 9/11 wikiproject.
back in April, I recommended that Thomas work on articles around this topic, rather than the main contentious articles. [51] I mentioned Operation Northwoods, World Trade Center (PATH station), Minoru Yamasaki, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, but I am sure that there are a number of articles which deeply interest him, and are currently in need of improvement. e.g. Conspiracy Theory (TV series), 911: In Plane Site, A Few Days in September, Mystery of the Urinal Deuce. John Vandenberg ( chat) 05:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Im so sorry, I suppose I should have left an "encyclopedia" article saying that the PLO was founded on Mars to liberate Palestine by wearing festive hats. An "extended block" for reverting vandalism would be so very fitting. nableezy - 02:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
@Tznaki, I wont, but perhaps User:Plot Spoiler, previously named ShamWow, could use formal notification of the ARBPIA case. nableezy - 03:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Cptnono, the only ridiculous thing here is that somebody actually requested a block for removing vandalism. Piss off. nableezy - 14:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Stellarkid, no you cannot say the same things about Muslims or Arabs. That user should not have said that, and combining the edit summary with the edit I felt, and still feel, that it was vandalism. The very diff you cite has already been addressed by Tznaki, there is no "flouting the sanctions with impunity" and to say that I have been doing so is plainly bogus. Can somebody archive this already? nableezy - 19:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This comes after Tznkai's call. nableezy has without a doubt circumvented sanctions a minimum of 5 times. A couple were files. One was an AfD a day before being unblocked. One of them was blatant vandalism. Another had a pretty crappy edit summary but was not necessarily a bad edit. Others (4 maybe?) were only "broadly" interpreted as being related. A couple were simply edit wars on talk pages that were only related to the topic. This does not excuse it. Harmless enough at first glance but they are still violations and a couple of them caused serious discussion. They even caused edit warring, requests for clarification, and requests for enforcement. A sanction is a sanction. He was not sanctioned to "not edit Arab-Israel when it might hurt feelings" He was sanctioned not to edit them at all. To punctuate this ridiculousness, Tznkai disregarded edit warring a few days ago (literally a few days!). How can you work on this project that has a disclaimer on potential long term blocks and not be concerned about edit warring? Edit warring is edit warring. As I called out Nableezy to get my sanction I will call out Tznkai: How can you clerk here and not see a concern? Wikiphilosiphy aside, there is an obvious problem and you bring your position into question. I feel that you have proven that you do not deserve/can handle/want the responsibility. If you aren't going to block (which is honestly OK by me) at least clearly say KNOCK IT OFF. You haven't done that twice now. Cptnono ( talk) 11:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I did not earlier see the comment "No one believes in your Jewish B.S" but I will just say that that type of bigotry has no place on WP, and points to serious problems collaborating with fellow Wikipedians in this area. Can I also expect to get a pass for saying the same except inserting "Muslim" or "Palestinian" or "Arab"???
Not all Nor were the edits were all reversions of vandalism --
[57] It seems clear that Nableezy is flouting the sanctions with impunity.
Stellarkid (
talk) 17:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Who's kidding who?
What wholesome or constructive rationale informs this new development? The continuing monogatari of needless folly just gets worse and worse -- and to what end?
It becomes reasonable to ask a meaningful and timely question: How does any part of this complaint enhance prospects for Wikipedia's future or for the community of volunteer contributors?
The answer needs to be stated bluntly: This helps no one. It confuses and discourages me.
In this investigative process, four crucial elements establish a context:
FACT #1: A prirori, ArbCom refused to answer explicit questions about what was and what was not encompassed with the ambit of ArbCom's decision-making in June and thereafter.
Fact #2: A posteriori, ArbCom then ratcheted up penalties because something not clearly identified was deemed to have failed to comply with what I couldn't have known was problematic before November, during November or thereafter.
Fact #3: Although ArbCom may have intended who-knows-what, the only words available to me in December were these:
And, if I'm understanding the complaint adequately, the one and only article I'm accused of wrongly editing was Wikipedia:Mentorship?
Fact #4: The narrowly-focused text which I researched and then added to Wikipedia:Mentorship does advance the "express purpose of locating a mentor"; but I don't understand why that isn't so obvious that it does not require further explanation. This reasonable assertion and belief is confirmed by Tenmei's contribution history which lists postings on pages of those who participated in the development of the article and its accompanying talk page:
In addition, further edits of this practical text are likely to contrive both (a) a shared-opportunity to work constructively with prospective mentors, thus creating a plausibly meaningful and persuasive working relationship which grows in an unforced way; and (b) a rhetorical foundation from which an unofficial mentorship committee may evolve naturally in a step-by-step fashion. This prospect encompasses those who are tentatively willing to try to help me, but who remain unwilling to enter into a formal ArbCom-endorsed relationship with its unknowable range of unanticipated pitfalls.
My limited, but unhappy experience with ArbCom's imprecise language is underscored by Penwhale's untimely and unmerited complaint.
In the context Penwhale contrives, any reluctance to help me officially seems both justified and prudent. What else is anyone to make of this newly contrived tempest in a teapot?
Anyone would be justifiably reluctant to thrust himself or herself into this problem-prone rhetorical maw or quagmire. The fact that I did so only serves to illustrate my ignorance, my innocence, my naivité and my sincere search for answers to questions which could be addressed in no other way -- none of which cause me to feel embarrassed.
Based solely on this newest "event", who can doubt that ArbCom was unable to recruit anyone to serve as a mentor at this stage of Wikipedia's development? But in passing the buck to me, did ArbCom truly want to contrive impossiblilty of performance as well?
In my view, this six-month history of ArbCom failure should be construed to argue in favor of giving me a realistic chance to try to comply with ArbCom's flawed decision. Instead, Penwhale's heedless complaint serves only to make my recruiting task more difficult.
Again, it is incumbent on me to ask, "Who's kidding who?"
While I presume no impropriety in Penwhale's complaint, it becomes impossible not to contemplate a range searching questions which need to be addressed in an effort to bring a better sense of balance to ArbCom's flawed presumptions, flawed procedures and flawed process.
In other words, I create a timely opportunity by asking this question: Given the inescapable fact that this newest sham is afflicting my patience and my efforts and also the view-point of any prospective ArbCom-endorsed "mentor", I have no choice but to assume that ArbCom's flaws devolve into an even more bizarre spectacle for those who are less confident, less innocent, less careful or less attentive to detail.
On my behalf and theirs, I must ask now: Why is this happening?
I would hope that the following will help enhance ArbCom to comprehend broad extent to which the phrase "Who's kidding who?" conveys a meaning that is idiomatic and clear at the same time.
|
|
Broadly, what purpose does this "enforcement" inquiry serve?
Narrowly, what purpose does an "enforcement" investigation serve?
Explicitly: (a) How is this congruent with the adduced principles and findings of the ArbCom case? (b) What am I to make of this? (c) What is any prospective mentor to make of this?
What other questions does this implicate?
What do I still fail to understand about what is going on here? And why isn't ArbCom doing more to help me understand? -- Tenmei ( talk) 10:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
For information, I have just blocked Tenmei for one week for breaching his editing restrictions, disabled his talk page, and asked him to contact the committee by email (he has our address). My apologies for sidestepping this noticebaord's processes on this particular occasion. Roger Davies talk 12:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
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.
Abd is prohibited from participating in discussion of any dispute in which he is not one of the originating parties, unless approved by his mentor(s). This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution. He would be allowed to vote or comment at polls.
No disruptive intention existed. I was indeed involved in the climate change dispute, as can be seen by the evidence referred to on my Talk page, that's just a fact, not wikilawyering. I appreciate MastCell's effort to avoid disruption, and if the statement filed with the RfAr is disruptive, I'd certainly defer to the judgment of a clerk or an arbitrator. I have no intention of further comment on this case unless requested by an arbitrator, or the case is opened and the matter of my permission to participate is resolved in some way. GoRight and I had previously discussed mentorship, before the present case was ever filed. I'm a little surprised, though, that MastCell would file this AE case so quickly, I'd have thought that more disruptive than what already existed, and I asked Mathsci to refrain from further posting to my talk page precisely to avoid useless argument. But if MastCell personally considers the Arbcomm statement itself disruptive, he's welcome to remove the comment, and I presume a clerk or arbitrator would adjudicate that. I won't personally contest it, and, if blocked, will not put up an unblock template, or at least not immediately. -- Abd ( talk) 01:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
As far as formal mentorship, I don't see any provision for that in the ArbCom decision. The mentorship proposals were voted down, with many Arbs expressing the opinion that they would be ineffective in your situation. As such, if you have any plans to cite a mentor when violating this editing restriction in the future, please clear that mentorship with ArbCom ahead of time. Having a close compatriot declare himself your informal "mentor" and excuse violations of your editing restrictions seems inappropriate. MastCell Talk 01:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Abd has not so far been involved in editing WP articles on climate change, or their talk pages. In the diff provided above by MastCell, Abd writes on his talk page that he is "involved" in climate change, but only in his private life and thoughts, not yet on wikipedia. That kind of statement is unhelpful and disruptive. A claimed wikifriendship with GoRight ( talk · contribs) cannot be used to justify contravening the current ArbCom editing restrictions. He seems to be testing the limits of his ArbCom restrictions within the first 3 weeks that they came into force (after his 3 month ban was lifted on Dec 13th). Mathsci ( talk) 01:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I refer all involved to the actual text of Abd's editing restriction,
found here:
The text of the resolution clearly states that Abd may participate as long as his mentors approve. Even at the time it had been suggested that I might fill such a role for him. Until he makes a more formal declaration in selecting a mentor, I have agreed to fulfill that function. Taking due consideration of not only his involvement in my RfC which covers almost exactly this same topic area as well as the same participants, I believe that Abd has also made edits to GW pages himself so I fail to see how one can argue that he is not involved. Therefore I have consented to his participation. -- GoRight ( talk) 02:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Actually when ArbCom voted, they voted against any kind of mentorship for Abd 2 and 2.1, voluntary or involuntary. The drafting of the final decision (by Stephen Bain) was not as careful as it could have been. This was pointed out on the talk pages of the ArbCom case, but the corresponding minor correction to the editing restriction was not made before the final version was posted. Only narrow wikilawyering would ignore the two votes of ArbCom against mentorship. From his actions here and his statements since his unblock, it seems Abd is still gaming the system and is deliberately refusing to understand ArbCom's intent. There was no agreed proposal for Abd to have a mentor, no matter how much Abd tries to twist ArbCom's statements. Other wikipedians will also note the irony of Abd accepting as his mentor an offer from an WP:SPA with hardly any namespace editing experience (< 600 edits to articles, 12% of his contributions), himself under a community topic ban. It's fairly easy to get a clarification in case the interpretation of the editing restrictions continues to be challenged. Mathsci ( talk) 06:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Arbcomm violations continue: [71] William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
I could provide any number of these: all of his edits in the last week are on physics related pages or relate to those pages.
The article Bivector is a mathematics article that I created in response to discussion among other parties on Talk: p-vector. No physics discussion takes place in Bivector, although many possible applications of this topic to physics do exist, and I invited JohnBlackburne to discuss them in the article. (He has not.) No sanction against me has been violated, and this article constitutes a worthy addition to WP, indicating my good faith efforts to improve WP.
The present situation resembles in some ways the earlier restriction review, which also revolved about a distinction between math and science. That review is about to be updated, and presumably can include JohnBlackburne's complaint. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, the article Bivector as it now stands is fairly complete, apart from example applications that I cannot add due to sanctions, and I have no more mathematics to add to it. So I'd guess there is little need for administrative intervention in this matter. Brews ohare ( talk) 18:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
JohnBlackburne wishes to raise the issue of my competence to write this article. My competence is a matter separate from violation of sanctions, which should be separately conducted. Although this charge is not relevant here, I wish to point out that no evidence is provided that the present article Bivector in any way presents incorrect arguments. The many sources I have provided to support various points seem necessary in view of the challenges brought by JohnBlackburne, which challenges of his he has universally abandoned on Talk: Bivector upon his further reflection. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Dicklyon says: "He edits fast and furious, adding his own interpretations of things, and won't slow down enough to allow space to incorporate the views of others. He makes collaboration impossible, ignoring the input of people". I find these remarks at variance with the evidence on Talk: Bivector, which shows I have fully addressed JohnBlackburne's observations and provided civil, sourced, and extensive response to him, including some direct questions to him about his views. My editing has not in any way impeded collaboration: rather, attempts at collaboration have been impeded by JohnBlackburne's failure to address my responses to and direct questions about his views and, instead of engaging in shaping the article, filing this complaint. Brews ohare ( talk) 03:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
JohnBlackburne and MathSci have raised once more the issue of my competence and suggested that I "make up" material and irrelevantly scatter sources about in my ramblings - a little essay concocted off the top of his head. Really! The basis for these extravagant charges is that to write an article on bivectors in R3 is unencyclopedic and unhelpful; in other words, whatever its accuracy and documentation, the article is insufficiently general for these gentlemen, who prefer the usual completely unsourced gobbledygook of many math articles, such as Rotor (mathematics) & Blade (geometry). Naturally, my inclusion of sources irks them. I do not believe such charges have any bearing on this particular hearing. I would be very happy to defend my competence on the math project page or in an RfC directed at my contributions to the content of Bivector. However, in the context of the present hearing, these allegations are (i) slander (ii) unsupported (iii) invalid & (iv) totally irrelevant to this hearing which is about allegations of violation of my sanctions. Brews ohare ( talk) 23:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I have not made more than a cursory glance through Brews' recent activity but what I saw did not seem overly disruptive to me: a dispute is not necessarily someone causing a nuisance. However, even if it was there are other avenues that would be better pursued than this. His contribution record does not reveal him to have recently breached his topic ban. If further action needs taking against him then people should go through the proper channels rather than attempting to short-circuit the process by applying his sanction in an inappropriate manner. CrispMuncher ( talk) 21:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Purely an individual opinion. The complaint and discussion seems side-tracked on the topic ban issue. However, some editors have commented that while the topic ban does not apply, there are continuing behavioral patterns that need to be addressed. I would ask that editors and any reviewing administrators consider this core aspect of the situation, rather than focus purely on the regulatory details of a topic restriction. Either there is a continuing problematic pattern of behavior, or there is not. If it is establish that there is an ongoing problem, Brews ohare is under a general conduct probation. Any uninvolved administrator may implement (as examples):
Any number of editing conditions and sanctions can be imposed in order to provide any necessary boundaries and/or imposed guidance. The discussion should focus on whether or not there is a ongoing pattern of problematic conduct. If there is a continuing issue, focus on what conditions will help provide Brews ohare with the guidance and boundaries necessary and best insulate the project from disruption. Vassyana ( talk) 02:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)