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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Adrian (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

DIGWUREN, section: Principles

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

This user is an example of WP:ABF, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OR. Since this user has been warned a couple of times, blocked several times [1]; [2] - blocked for edit warring, placed under DIGWUREN notice and under the List of editors placed under editing restriction [3] his behavior is not changing, it is even worse.

He is violating at-least 4 out of 5 principles of DIGWUREN case [4].

According to his edits, his contributions are 90% related to conflicts with people who disagree with him, in most of the showing battleground mentality and bad faith with almost obligatory accusations of whoever complains against him for block shopping or harassment.

Links:

1. [5] Bad faith and closing discussion without the permission of other editors.
2. [6] Original research, and when corrected he acts in bad faith against this user: [7]
3. [8] Original research, and when corrected acts in bad faith against a second user : [9]
4. [10] Protecting original research with bad faith.
5. [11] Protecting original research with bad faith.
6. [12] bad faith.
7. [13] Bad faith edits.
8. [14] Bad faith and battleground mentality.
9. [15] Bad faith and civility problems (na szevasz te észlény in Hungarian = Hello you smartass(or rather doofus/dummy)).
10. [16] Original research on this and many other articles in spite of many warnings(there isn`t enough place here to enumerate them all).
11. [17] Edit warring.
12. [18] This behavior combined with trying to block other users.
13. [19] Reverting other peoples messages, even a Request for comment.
14. [20] Bad faith and battleground mentality.

His talk page is riddled with warnings and block logs from several different editors just in the last month:[21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26].. which he clearly ignores.

There are many more examples, but I enumerated only the latest. Note that whatever contact with this user wth persons who doesn`t agree with him is resulted in an immediate accusations of block shopping or harassment [27] and [28] while allowing him to continue with his behavior.

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

1. Warned on [29] by Elonka (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:Timotheus Canens - You are right, indeed I used a lot of this phrasing (just noticed myself :) ) but I don`t know with what other words to describe some of the actions I presented here. If this is not appropriate I could change it. Adrian (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise - I am surprised that you don`t see anything wrong with the diffs I provided but if you fell that I made a mistake, that`s fine too. I am aware that Arbitration process can rule against me too. I thought that this pattern in the behavior of this user is more than obvious in violating the principles of the DIGWUREN case. Adrian (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tijfo098 - In my opinion you are partially right. The main reason is his conduct while adding unsourced data. Several times just a simple contact with this user results in various accusations and personal attacks which leads to conflicts. Adrian (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused that several uninvolved users think there is nothing serious here about the conduct of this user (WP:AGF for starts), but ok. In my opinion principle courtesyDIGWUREN, section: Principles is violated by this user. I see that for an example User:Irpen is listed [[30]] as for personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith for less. Of course it is possible that I made a mistake but I have 2 questions:

• 1) Does this mean that this kind of behavior is allowed?
• 2) If I get a sanctioned for misusing this board does this means that this behavior is in some way tolerated?

I would like to know so I would not repeat the same mistake in the future. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Nmate.

I will try to respond to some of the points you made, on points I do not respond I believe the diffs I provided before provides sufficient information and no further explanations are needed. Also I am not sure that I must be implicated personally to file this report if there is evidence for claims I presented here.

• 2 - After somebody informs you that you are adding original research you responded with phrases: I gasped at you, also based on this you even accused this user of personal attack which is unprecedented. Phrase of which you know fucking nothing isn`t something a wikipedian should use.
• 6 - You considered the addition of some tags to a article created by you as an offense, not as a harmless indicator added in good faith to signal that the article needs to be improved. After that you followed with a personal attack [31].
• 8 - You closed an active discussion. According to Which discussions need to be closed you acted in bad faith.
• 9 - Your edit summary (while you reverted his warning) is a civility problem. The Hungarian phrase na szevasz te észlény(Hello you smartass(or rather doofus/dummy)) is a suggestion of incivility and personal attack. I translated it and if requested we can ask for an uninvolved Hungarian editor to provide a translation.
• 13 - Deleting someone's possible constructive comment on the basis of a personal suspicion(unconfirmed by admins) is a proof of bad faith.
• 14 - According to Banning policy: When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. - you added an unsourced and badly written data(WP:OR). Also Zboril Are Descendants Of Ilona Szilágyi is badly written and unreferenced (WP:OR).

According to the diffs I provided your behavior presents an serious problem on wikipedia, and I presented only your latest actions. You are well informed of DIGWUREN case yet your behavior is the same as when you were warned or placed under editing notice. I am not sure if I need to inform other users of this, but if requested I will.

I will avoid to answer your accusations(with which I don`t see a connection to this report) because anyone who disagrees with you meets with one or more accusations. I hope I answered your questions. Adrian (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the section specially dedicated to me and not to the this case. Again you accuse me of various things without any solid evidence, you even accused this user of NPA just for informing you of WP:OR! Even so, I will try to answer them to avoid the confusion you inserted. Diffs from more than a year ago I don`t want to comment, by that I could enumerate your actions from before.

1. Diffs from 2012:

• 1 - You deleted other people`s comments without the evidence of sock or anything else. A proof of bad faith. I commented there according to wiki policies.
• 2 - You did violated 3RR and by entering in an continuing edit war you showed battleground mentality. I also informed other users that you are familiar with DIGWUREN case yet you still show disruptive behavior.
• 3 - Note that on my comment where I provided diffs for my claims you answered

Note that Iadrian yu is block-shopping again based on frivilous reasons of which I will notify the Arbitration Comitee. Restoring a comment made by a site-banned user is not allowed. Second, I haven't encountered Iadrian yu on Wikipaedia for a while and still he is block shopping. It is disgusting.

and

Has this anything to do with you? Note that Iadrian yu does not interest to edit the article; his only aim is block shopping. Second, I do not have to wait until it is confirmed by checkuser if said user admitted that he is a sockpuppet: which part of it do you not understand? - where again you did`t waited for the sock to be confirmed (as you stated it yourself) and started accusing me again just because I was there. I am starting to think that there is no encounter in the last year where you did`t responded to my diffs with some sort of accusation against me just because I presented some data and not addressed the evidence I provided. Adrian (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will add more diffs that demonstrates User:Nmate`s behavior problems.

1. [32] Adding original research while not allowing other users to edit new pages ? Followed by a problematic edit summary with accusations (Wikistalking).
2. [33] - Same problem on different article.
3. [34] - Appears in the discussion he was not involved, to participate against me.
4. [35] Conditional unblock for edit warring and because Nmate removed data of users that were not confirmed socks yet.
5. [36] - An attempt to block me at Arbitration enforcements for no reason, after lacking evidence he canceled the report [37].

If more diffs are needed I could provide them in given time. Adrian (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification [38] Adrian (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what Iadrian yu wants to achieve here. 14 diffs are brought up here most of them do not concern Iadrian yu. So what does he deal with my alleged "bad faith" then? It is senseless.

• 1. line, it does not concern Iadrian yu. He did not even take part in this discussion. So what does he deal with my alleged "bad faith" then? There was no point in continuing the discussion there. Closing a discussion is not such a big concern, I did not edit war on closing it. Omen1229 reverted it back. Interestingly enough that no-one participated in the discussion afterwards
• 2. line, it does not concern Iadrian yu. He did not even take part in this discussion. So what does he deal with my alleged "bad faith" then?
• 3. line, First diff does not concern Iadrian yu. He did not even take part in this discussion. So what does he deal with my alleged "bad faith" then? Second diff indeed concerns Iadrian yu, I will return to the issue later.
• 4. line, it does not concern Iadrian yu and has nothing to do with original research. I deleted the "unreferenced" and "copy edit" tags from the lead. And I also do not understand what Iadrian yu deals with my bad faith.
• 5. line same as above.
• 6. line, it does not concern Iadrian yu. It is related to 4. and 5. lines. I had a slight disagrement with one another user whom Iadrian yu has never interacted with, but it was resolved.
• 7. line, the edit in question was not even mine.
• 8. line, it was a revert, nothing more.

And that my edit summary "referenced but irrelevant information that no need to include in the article. The historical section requies only an overview of the history. Lots of pieces of info is written in the article in bad English in addition" can be interpreted as "Bad faith and battleground mentality" surpasses the power of my imaginary.

• 9. line, What does Iadrian yu deal with an edit summary related to my talk page? It was not incivility. On the other hand, Iadrian does even no speak Hungarian; therefore, he is unable to translate it.
• 10. line, it wasn't OR.
• 11. line, it was a revert. Later, it evolved to a samaller edit war. It does not concern Iadrian yu. It is related to 4. 5. and 6. lines. I had a slight disagrement with one another user whom Iadrian yu has never interacted with, but it was resolved. Finally, said user told me "Again, if you ever have questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards," [39]
• 12.line, This behavior combined with trying to block other users Whom? If the other user is User:Samofi, he is an indef-bloked user. What is more, admin The Blade of the Northern Light told in this thread that he revoked Samofi's talk page access.
• 13. line, "Reverting other peoples messages, even a Request for comment." Indded, I did it. The user was a sockpuppet using proxy IP.
• 14. line, it is deceptive. At the article Ilona Szilágyi, I reverted a lot of edits made by 2 sockpuppets of a well known sockpuppeter [40][41] And yet at the same time, one another user who knew nothing of the situation intervened there by restoring the sockpuppet's edit. Then I indeed reverted the edit back that has nothing to do with any kind of battleground mentality. However, Iadrian yu cared to include the only one revert here when I did not revert the sockpuppetter to double-cross the administrators.

To Iadrian yu

• 2. line, After somebody informs you that you are adding original research you responded with phrases: I gasped at you, also based on this you even accused this user of personal attack which is unprecedented. Phrase of which you know fucking nothing isn`t something a wikipedian should use.
• response: Seriously??? It was not OR. You can hardly bring this issue up at WP AE. This might belong to Wikiquette.

• 6. line, You considered the addition of some tags to a article created by you as an offense, not as a harmless indicator added in good faith to signal that the article needs to be improved. After that you followed with a personal attack.

• response: It was not a personal attack, but a frolic. Please learn some more English. What do you deal with that? It did not concern you. To repeat myself, it was resolved: said user told me "Again, if you ever have questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards," [42] Withal, I think that a user may not request for remedy for any personal attacks that do not concern him except for extraordinary reasons such as blackmailing, death threat, or when the attacked user is inactive. However, Iadrian yu showed up at WP AE making demands for admin action against me for purporated personal attacks aimed at active users he has never ever encountered on Wikipedia while he "forgot" to notify the attacked users in question.
• 8. line, You closed an active discussion.
• response: That discussion wasn't so active. Please check how many people wanted to participate in it afterwards. Btw you can hardly bring this issue up at WP AE. This might belong to Wikiquette.

• 9. line, Your edit summary (while you reverted his warning) is a civility problem. The Hungarian phrase na szevasz te észlény(Hello you smartass(or rather doofus/dummy)) is a suggestion of incivility and personal attack. I translated it and if requested we can ask for an uninvolved Hungarian editor to provide a translation
• response: I do not think that any administrator gives a hoot about that. Withal, I think that a user may not request for remedy for any personal attacks that do not concern him except for extraordinary reasons such as blackmailing, death threat, or when the attacked user is inactive. However, Iadrian yu showed up at WP AE making demands for admin action against me for purporated personal attacks aimed at active users he has never ever encountered on Wikipedia while he "forgot" to notify the attacked users in question.
• 13. line - Deleting someone's possible constructive comment on the basis of a personal suspicion(unconfirmed by admins) is a proof of bad faith.
• response: Only that it was confirmed.

• 14. line: According to Banning policy: When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. - you added an unsourced and badly written data(WP:OR). Also Zboril Are Descendants Of Ilona Szilágyi is badly written and unreferenced (WP:OR).
• response: First Iadrian yu accused me of "Bad faith and battleground mentality" and when he saw that it did not fit to common sense, he begans referring to banning policy and verifiability

Iadrian yu pretends that there was some serious offense. It’s obvious he stores some kind of file on me, watches all my edits, even ones which don’t concern him in the least bit, looking for some “dirt”. This is explicit evidence of ‘’’long term, sustained, stalking’’’. Additonally, he accuses me of battleground mentality, and bad faith acting towards 3 users: User:IRWolfie-, User:Lone boatman ,and User:Cindamuse without his making any attempt to notify either of them about the fact that he lodged a request for arbitration for me in which they are involved. So why? It is because of the fact that he has never interacted with these users, and I also just coincidentally encountered them in Wikipedia. Therefore, it is unlikely that they would like to participate in his block shopping campaign here.

• previous attempts at block shopping:

1. 09:04, 13 March 2011. There is not enough to warrant a block at this time: 18:48, 15 March 2011
2. 13:34 11 July, 2011 frivilous SPI case, I see no evidence that would warrant an investigation of the other mentioned users: 17:41, 11 July, 2011
3. 13:30 4 October, 2011 Calling my "involvement" - eager to block you is just ridiculous ..... in my opinion you should take a wiki-break.

On 20 April, 2012, I began reverting edits made to Wikipedia by a self-admitted sockpuppet, and Iadrian yu appeared at the "edit warring board" - which is a place to get blocks - in order to agitate for one another block for me:

1. 11:57, 20 April 2012("Again a new problem with this user")
2. 12:01, 20 April 2012 ("in this examples it is clear that Nmate violated the 3RR several times and of course the battleground mentality of edit warring")
3. 12:04, 20 April 2012
4. 12:33, 20 April 2012 ("Ah, another sign of a constructive, friendly editing I guess ... after several arbitration enforcements on your account")

I think that Iadrian yu has been on a permanent campaign to eliminate an editor who he disagrees with. At this point, this should be disruptive enough to require some block.

Interesting enough that it is Iadrian yu who has reported me at WP AE, and yet he dares to tell that I accuse him of various things without any solid evidence.

• You deleted other people`s comments without the evidence of sock or anything else. A proof of bad faith. I commented there according to wiki policies.

My reply is: it was a block-shopping on you part, everyone can see it with a half brain. Then the sockpuppet was blocked[43], no adim action was taken against me.

• You did violated 3RR and by entering in an continuing edit war you showed battleground mentality. I also informed other users that you are familiar with DIGWUREN case yet you still show disruptive behavior.

My reply is: Had I violated the 3RR rule , I would have blocked for it. No-one, but User:Bzg1920 was blocked there. Normally, the edit warring board has nothing to do with DIGWUREN. However, you began retairating DIGWURREN there in the hope of that it may result in me being blocked even more seriously than as usuall happens in the edit warring board. I resent "the disruptive behavior". You are the one being disruptive.

There is nothing to further comment on this line.--Nmate (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who's pushing the most POV here, but "Lots of pieces of info is written in the article in bad English in addition" was funny. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise - I am also surprised that you don`t see anything wrong with the diffs. In my opinion Future Perfect at Sunrise is not neutral admin. He acts in favour of Nmate. He used "boomerang" phrase in my case, in case of user Samofi and again in case of Adrian. On the other hand he always acted quickly in Nmate benefit or in favour of other editors from his POV/country. For example this case: At 22 November 2011 he promised he will look on my "oponnents": [44] But nothing happened. On the other hand after canvass of Nmate he had time to block Samofi [45] . This was reason for him for topic ban: [46] and this for a block: [47] But for example this statement (The modern Slovakia is a neo-fascist state where the hungarian minority is just a thing what they have to assimilate into the slovak society. [48] ) was unnoticed. It looks like a admin abuse. In my opinion user Nmate wants to block all users with different opinions.--Omen1229 (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making an attack on one of the admins will only reinforce a boomerang and will quickly lose you anything sympathy. Please don't do that. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice I was mentioned by name, but not informed of this. I suggest the admins look at User_talk:IRWolfie-#Your message on my talk page, to get an idea of the failure to AGF. The comments on my page arose from [49] IRWolfie- (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the actual concern here is that Nmate has been adding unsourced material. It looks like this has been mostly translated from the Hungarian Wikipedia. At the same time he was deleting large amounts of sourced material, but which was based on rather obscure (Slovakian?) sources. In the latter case there was zero discussion on the talk page Talk:Reca; there was some on a user talk page. The unsourced material he added was challenged on the assumption that it was "OR", which is not a productive line of discussion; again this was (unhelpfully) discussed on user talk pages, such as IRWolfie-'s. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• There are no major mistakes or signs of outrageous behavior in the provided diffs. I do not see the point of this request. Content disputes, such as what is OR and which information are relevant to particular articles, should be discussed on the appropriate Talk Pages. All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• For clarity's sake, I've disabled Samofi's talkpage access as it was becoming incredibly obvious nothing good would come from him having it. Nmate posted a message on my talkpage asking me to, and I honestly don't read anything into it; no matter how slanted any request to block a user and/or disable talkpage access, admins are supposed to independently review the situation. Same thing goes for the requests above. That said, there may have been other issues that I didn't see, so I'll look over everything again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I must say that I have never seen an AE request that features so many instances of the phrase "bad faith". T. Canens (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I can see nothing actionable in the diffs against Nmate, but would support boomerang measures against Iadrian yu for misusing this board. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The comment above by Tjfo098 offers the first evidence I've seen that there is any issue at all with Nmate's recent edits. Those particular examples are hard to get excited about. Checking Nmate's last 500 edits (back to late August) doesn't show me anything alarming. This AE by Iadrian yu is certainly close to being a misuse of the board. Per Future Perfect's suggestion for a boomerang, I would support a warning to User:Iadrian yu for wasting our time. EdJohnston (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

IRWolfie- (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBCC#Discretionary_sanctions_motion_.282011.29

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

A number of editors have been actively disruptive in the area related to climate change. A worrying large number of personal attacks, insinuations and incivility have been directed against WMC. All this has resulted from an AfD which I opened on a non-notable climate scientist. There was a very large amount of canvassing: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ShowTimeAgain/Archive and several new editors started editing as a result of the canvassing, or became others became active after a large period of inactivity. Africangenesis turned up at the AfD and is a problematic editor:

Amongst other things, he has been edit warring to insert Leroux into List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global_warming:

1. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]
4. [53]
5. [54]

The editor only stopped to avoid WP:3RR technicality (he actually made 4 reverts), clearly gaming the system, mentioning in the last revert that "You hit 3RR before I do." The response to a warning makes for interesting reading: [55] also.

• Assorted diffs:

[56][57][58][59][60][61][62]

There is a lot of evidence but I am aware that ARE admins like succinct filings so I have mostly limited myself to the most recent major incident. If interested for more, read the associated ANI comments, WilyD page comments etc by following the diffs

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

1. Warned on 9 October 2012 by dave souza (talk · contribs) and confirmed by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs)
2. warned on 21 October 2010 by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [63] Response to notification: [64]

Turkey trots to water What was User:Dominus Vobisdu doing instantly reverting an edit on a page, he had never edited before, and had never participated before on that talk page, or on the discussion or vote for the deletion of the Marcel Leroux page, or on any of the discussions still ongoing on other pages regarding the deletion. Repeat: What was User:Dominus Vobisdu doing instantly reverting an edit on a page, he had never edited before, and had never participated before on that talk page, or on the discussion or vote for the deletion of the Marcel Leroux page, or on any of the discussions still ongoing on other pages regarding the deletion. The world wonders.

• When I saw his quick revert, and he didn't post to the talk page, my investigations showed he was a totally uninvolved flyby, and I saw his snarky, self-righteous edit summary "Sneaky. Tsk, tsk.", I knew he was a bad faith editor ready for an edit war. I could have adhered to my voluntary 1RR commitment which before, since and still I have taken very seriously, but if I did, that would have been that. Now, thankfully with IRWolfie's help, the world does wonder.

• I also still strongly feel after years of editing and thinking about wikipedia culture, that the creation of new text should not count as one of the reverts. It is not too much of a burden on the community to have the deletionist have to have the support of one other community member to "win" rather than dialogue in good faith.

I understand that this user may have a sterling record, which of course, makes me wonder even more. I will put a link to this on Vovisdu's page, since he has been mentioned, in passing.

--Africangenesis (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add, I think the wikipedia should wonder more about what goes on on these climate related pages.--Africangenesis (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, the first two edits are different, I was learning to wikilink across to the fr.wikipedia. If my lawyer was here, he would tell you that either the second edit was a significantly new text in the context of the importance of wikilinks on this page (someone is not "notable" unless he has a wikipedia page, but then he can't have a wikipedia page unless he is first notable without one). Or he would tell you that the second edit was such a small change that it was essentially a minor typo fix to the first, such that if the intervening revert hadn't screwed things up, the first two edits would have been considered just one edit.--Africangenesis (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfie has pursued the deletion of professor Marcel Leroux despite the fact that he was obviously notable by WP:Academic criterion #5 due to being the head of the climate laboratory by criterion 1 due to his large number of citations. Since then his number of citations has been shown to be in the top 1% of his related fields. I wasn't involved from the beginning of the article and history isn't available, but he had been knighted by France for his service, meeting criterion 2, if that was known at the time of the deletion request that would be another sign of bad faith. Additionally there was the question of impact outside his profession because of his academic work, criterion 7. His skeptical writings on global warming were cited by the skeptical communities within France and around the world, but his articles in credible sources like newspapers were by him and not about him. Since then I have found several French newspaper articles which discuss his opinions in way which may meet criterion 7. <new paragraph>

Despite the original notability criteria, and the documentation since, IRWolfie- has been pursuing deletion and WP:BATTLE warring on the sandbox version of the Marcel Leroux article and on the supporting File pages, even though, the page is still in deletion review. Conclusion: unclean hands --Africangenesis (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The shear notability of Marcel Leroux is evidence of IRWolfie-'s unclean hands. Here is how notable Leroux is:

• From WP:Academic these criteria are to be applied:

Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the General Notes section, which follows.

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

Discussion) From google scholar, Leroux has 67 pubs, and 617 citations. His H-index is 9 and his I10-index is 8. Marcel Leroux is far above average, likely in the top 1% of his field. Climate Science wasn't specifically listed, it is a multi-disciplinary field, but for the two closest fields from this reference, the citation threshold for being in the top 1% of scientists is 337 in environment and ecology. In Geosciences it is 538. [65]. It isn't just the number of articles and citations. I think a fair conclusion would be that he was accepted authoritatively as the world's leading expert on the climate of Northern Africa, France and the Iberian peninsula. His "The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes" appears to be an enduring contribution.

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

Discussion) The fact that he was the director or head of a laboratory can be argued to meet both or either criteria 5 and 6. As was mentioned above, the language barrier makes this difficult for the english wikipedia, it is difficult to even get the name right. In english it would be "Laboratory of Climatology, Risk, and Environment." But in the French "du Laboratoire de Climatologie, Risques, Environnement" or "du Laboratoire de Climatologie, Risques et Environnement" and even some alternate wordings all get hits corresponding to Leroux. Jacques Comby appears to be the current head of the laboratory, or one of its professors.

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

Discussion) Once again the language barrier comes into play. While he has thousands of hits of blog level criteria, most of his articles in english appear to be invited commentary by him. An argument can be made that the newspaper articles that he is the author of, are notable, because they are not just letters to the editor, but invited commentary, not extended to just anyone. So once again language and cultural differences are a barrier. The French newspapers of the stature of a NY Times or Washington Post or WSJ are not as open, they are paywalled, but I have found several hits which appear to be articles about Leroux or quoting him.

• Des cyclones aussi nombreux mais plus puissants
• Un phénomène météorologique rare mais pas exceptionnel
• Noël au balcon
• Débat sur réchauffement de la Terre
• Le climat change plus vite que jamais
• Questions sur un climat fou, fou, fou
• L'écologisme à l'épreuve
• Un climat de plus en plus agité
• L'ordinateur est expert, mais pas prophète

Leroux may well be notable by the general criteria, not just the WP:Academic criteria

An objective review of the history around the AfD, and subsequent attacks on the sandbox, and referenced files, and the failure to reverse despite previous discussion of all this material, leads to the conclusion that the AfD itself was WP:BATTLE.--Africangenesis (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deceptive presentation of the evidence above as further evidence of unclean hands Just prior to the 3RR violation discussion IRWolfie- posted FIVE links of "evidence". Which makes it appear as if the 3RR violation is open and shut. The first link is most egregious because it is more that TWO DAYS EARLIER I discuss the alleged 3RR violation next.--Africangenesis (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the first of the 5 links presented by IRWolfie- Was TWO FULL DAYS prior to the other four links, presenting 5 links prior to the 3RR discussion makes it too easy for a bad faith voter to just assume there was an egregious violation.

Note, also that link number 3 can be argued to be SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT from the link number 2 which is the first of the quick sequence to be considered in a 3RR analysis.

The wikilink in number two is:

[http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Leroux Marcel Leroux]

while in number three it is:

[[:fr:Marcel Leroux | Marcel Leroux]]

In the context of this article, where great significance is placed upon the link as showing notability, one that appears as hypertext to a flyby editor, and one that appears as a normal wikilink to another article is a substantial difference. It is clear that I am presenting a normal article in a normal manner.

Dominus Vobisdu reverted each edit with these corresponding edit summaries:

Sneaky. Tsk, tsk.

Still sneaky, oui, oui!

On my second revert, I admonish him against bad faith editing:

Sorry, that is not a valid reason for reverting, you are not editing in good faith

It is only on his third revert where he raises an informative issue in the edit summary, never on the talk page:

French WP has different criteria for notability than English WP. The article failed AfD on English WP. Don't add again.

After that is when I revert for the third time, and stop, and do not revert WMC's, revert. --Africangenesis (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominus explains his sudden appearance at the article:

"I've been lurking on the page in question, as I generally edit in peudoscience related areas, but rarely edit or participate in discussions because of the shockingly hostile atmosphere there."

If he was as familiar with the goings on at the page and the hostile atmosphere as he claims, then he should also have known that I was a 1RR editor, and that there has never been a shortage of users willing to revert. He calls my edit summary deceptive while admitting that it was also true. Why did he feel compelled to revert and then to edit war after that?

If he was as familiar with the deletion and deletion review as he claims then why did he delete a technically complying blue link, for a professor / scientist that is clearly notable by 4 criteria when only one is required. Was he being a wikilawyer, instead of representing the true intent of wikipedia? Did he agree that Marcel Leroux was notable and as an informed person going to vote to restore the article, so he just wanted the restored entry in the page to await what he considers a "real" blue link? That is a technicality. My edits were in the spirit of wikipedia. He should have known that his reverts were totally unnecessary, and that local community is perfectly willing to revert notable scientists, in a timely matter that that their reverts had been "respected" by 1RR behavior. --Africangenesis (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Dominus comment is totally unfair:

"As far as I was concerned, that was the end to the matter."

because as far as I was concerned, it was the end of the matter too. You failed to note that it was not the end of the matter for others, who seized upon it as an opportunity. My descriptions of your behavior have been confirmed by your own admissions and by my independent research. They were not a personal attack on you, and as you noted, they were not directed at you. Frankly, you defense of your behavior doesn't hold water. --Africangenesis (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had completely forgotten the previous arbcom warning. Although I wonder that I didn't use the "unclean hands" defense at that one, since Tony Sidaway had brought it. He claimed he had stepped back for a bit. But his bias remains clear since his is operating the climate change news feed at google+ Where is Tony Sidaway, BTW, has he been banned or something?

WilyD, you haven't been exactly neutral on this. You judgement at closure has been called into question. The Knighthood and the lab head position were not in question. Since then your comment about how scientists might have been slow to come around, shows your bias. You comment arguing against my demonstration that Marcel Leroux's citations put him in the top 1% of his relate fields, by noting that it isn't just professors that are in the field, shows that you are trying parse all the evidence in the most negative way possible. None of this would be happening if you had simply corrected your earlier closing decision.--Africangenesis (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: WilyD you are mistaken, the warning was two years ago.--Africangenesis (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to my Correction, it appears to have been Dominus who was mistaken about the date, unless a WileyD comment was edited underneath me.--Africangenesis (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification I see that Tony Sidaway is still an editor in good standing.--Africangenesis (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the reference to crew was not to current editors, but to the past, I'm entitled to my recollection. Having been a witness to collaboration on the back channel chat forum. However, I did apologize to WMC for suggesting that he had been involved in calling scientists deniers. Since then I recall something going on with regard to the Category hierarchy. Climate skepticism was being put under Category:Denialism. Shortly after that Jimmy Wales had to get involved in cleaning up some biographies. I should note that WMC was engaging in WP:BATTLE behavior as well, with his participation in the unjustified Marcel Leroux deletion, and going even further to suggest to WilyD that "salting" of the ongoing efforts on it should be considered. I don't know what "salting" is but it sounds bad. It seems that if multple people who are not a crew engage in WP:BATTLE behavior with one editor, it is that editor that is at risk.--Africangenesis (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors disaffected by the culture still contribute, while you may consider me a climate change warrier, that is a biased view imposed by the requirement to be logged in to edit those semi-protected articles. Here is a partial record of other anonymous contributions. My broadband provider changes the IP address occasionally, here are some anonymous contributions. [66][67]. These contributions and others from past IPs and by other disaffected editors are despite the cognitive disssonance imposed by contributing to the credibility of an organization which tolerates the WP:OWN collective behavior on the climate articles.

You mention battleground behavior, but can you honestly say that a relentless attempt to delete a notable scientist, the sandbox of his article, the file documenting his award, etc. and attack all attempts to defend him while refusing to concede any of the points established by better than usual evidence, while technically avoiding "violations" is editing in good faith and not battleground behavior? Look a little deeper please.

regards, --Africangenesis (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the anonymous edit contributions I claim above, my use of my login has not been strictly climate related, those edits dominate because you have to war to get changes in those articles, even as the community eventually agrees it is often only grudging. Many of my climate contributions still exist on those pages, hard won agreement, but wikipedia is better for it. Here is a list of my other article editing that I bothered to login for:

   Chaos theory
   Che Guevara
   Conscription in Germany
   Counterpoint
   Denialism
   Enumerative induction
   Ericsson cycle
   Evolution
   Fallacy
   False dilemma
   File talk:John Quiggin enumerative induction.png
   Fluid ounce
   Health effects of tea
   Intelligent design
   Kaempferol
   Low-energy vehicle
   MDMA
   Melatonin
   Near-Earth object
   New Zealand
   Novel
   Ozone depletion
   Plug-in hybrid
   Postmodernity
   Russell Humphreys
   Sodium benzoate
   Solar variation
   Specified complexity
   Tea --Africangenesis (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"any reason"? Would you care to defend that hyperbolic battleground language? Are you one of those who can read all the discussion of Marcel Leroux and still say with a straight face that you don't see "any reason" he is notable? If so you are aspiring to IRWolfie's heights of intellectual honesty.

Do you really think the admin culture at wikipedia will be impressed with your rhetoric. Are you capable of giving a fair hearing? If you really can't think of a reason, you shouldn't be trusted with admin privileges should you?--Africangenesis (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You are a nice guy.--Africangenesis (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A snarky mention of WP:TRUTH? No encyclopedia should aspire to be post-modern. --Africangenesis (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems here to be addressed: making a deceptive edit summaries, and a long, long history of gross incivility that resulted in an ArbCom warning one year two years ago, and has continued to this day, despite mulitiple warnings.

I've been lurking on the page in question, as I generally edit in peudoscience related areas, but rarely edit or participate in discussions because of the shockingly hostile atmosphere there.

However, there is a certain consensus among the various parties there that any scientists added to the list have their own WP articles (no red links).

I noticed that Africangenesis had readded a section on a scientist, Marcel Leroux, whose article had recently failed AfD, and was going through DRV.

In his edit summary, he said that he was readding the material on this scientist as a "blue link", which I found odd. When I checked his addition, I was surprised to see that the link in question was indeed blue, as he said. Clicking on it, though, I discovered that he had linked not to the (deleted) article on English WP, but to the article on French wikipedia.

I reverted, of course, and he reverted back. This went on until I hit 3r, at which point he accused me of "not editing in good faith" and taunted "You hit 3RR before I do". His fourth revert was quickly overturned by another editor.

As far as I was concerned, that was the end to the matter. But not for Africangenesis. He proceded to make accusations of vandalism and bad faith against me, not directly to me, but to several other editors and administrators. I was called a "flyby" [[68]], a "a vandal or someone recruited from a chat room comes in who isn't acting in good faith " that "shouldn't be allowed to get away with playing games" [[69]], a "vandal" who "should have to explain what he was doing there, did he hear about it on the chat room or what" [[70]], a "deletionist" [[71]], and an "interloper" who "loves to delete" [[72]], who he wonders has been a net contributer to wikipedia [[73]]. This continues with his statement in this case above, where he questions my right to edit the page at all.

This not the the first time Africangenesis has violated WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY. He has been warned abundantly, even by arbcom itself [[74]]. In fact, one of the threads on which he bad-mouthed me was a thread started to warn him about multiple civility violations [[75]].

Since being warned a year ago by Arbcom, Africangenesis has persited in uncivil and battleground behavior, and shows no willingness or ability to change. I recommend a (long-overdue) indefinite block. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Having previously edited the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, I noticed Africangenesis referring on the article's talk page to his "memory of an earlier time, when WMC and crew were fighting to put scientists on a list like this",[76] so I joined the thread to remind Africangenesis that WP:NPA "means you shouldn't be dismissing other editors as "crew". Please cease and desist."[77] Far from desisting, Africangenesis escalated attacks,[78] [79] so I advised Africangenesis on their talk page that this was clear contravention of WP:NPA and displayed WP:BATTLEFIELD behaviour, particularly unacceptable on a climate change topic after having already been notified of WP:ARBCC sanctions. When Africangenesis responded aggressively, I advised NuclearWarfare,[80] who then warned Africangenesis about attacking other editors in this manner.[81] That was on 9 October 2012, but Africangenesis did not improve behaviour. A similar pattern showed in the Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement discussion[82] which led to Africangenesis being formally notified of ARBCC sanctions on 21 October 2010, with a warning that ongoing disruptive editing may result in blocks, topic bans, or other editing restrictions.[83]. . . dave souza, talk 11:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that Africangenesis' actions have been disruptive, his point about Marcel Leroux being improperly deleted is valid. I disagree with the academic notability standards, but Leroux clearly passes them in several ways. Africangenesis' response to the deletion has been extreme, but I can understand his frustration when faced with an unjust situation. To focus solely on his behavior and ignore the apparent POV pushing tactics being used would only increase the injustice. Gigs (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice a strong dose of WP:TRUTH and some heavy-handed Wikilawyering in Africangenesis' replies. I've tried to explain WP:3RR (admittedly with somewhat less patience than I usually manage to employ) at his (or her?) talk page, but with, as far as I can tell, limited success. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Africangenesis is an old user who's already been warned about their conduct in an Arbitration? Huh - I had kinda assumed from things like voting "maintain" at AfD, and various other signs, that they were inexperienced and plausibly redeemable - a lot of grandstanding that leaked into personal attacks, but not so bad that perhaps it couldn't be fixed with a bit of nudging. I had hoped that a bit of discussion on CIVILity might sink in before they dug themselves too deep into their hole. Wikilawyering and combative, yes (maybe more combative than incivil, though that's six of one, a half dozen of the other). I might've even spoken in their defence, but given the old ArbCom warning, I think I'll pass. Hopefully they'll realise that nobody will have infinite patience (if it isn't too late already). WilyD 10:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks like a topic ban is called for here. Too much WP:IDHT basically. Perhaps 3-6 months, unless he has been sanctioned before. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's been disruptive for over 2 years and has received official sanctions warnings twice. I don't think a 6 month ban would make much sense, because evidently Ag would have no issue waiting it out. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Gigs, Why Leroux doesn't meet PROF has already been discussed countless times. Also see the DRV where the decision is being endorsed. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with the application of WP:PROF has seen articles kept for much more obscure academics. Full professorship and h-indexes lower than Leroux are a guaranteed keep. I think that's wrong and we shouldn't do it that way, but that's the normal practice.

The DRV is only evidence that the administrator acted reasonably, it doesn't really review whether the participating editors correctly applied prevailing notability standards. That's why I did not vote to overturn in the DRV, I think WilyD came to a reasonable conclusion since administrators often do not question the interpretation of notability standards by the voting editors, unless it's blatantly incorrect. Gigs (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My feeling is that one side of the debate tries to shut down the other. Africangenesis engaged in battleground conduct against a number of editors engaged in civil POV pushing on Leroux. This should be considered a mitigating circumstance.- BorisG (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can people be engaged in civil POV pushing on Leroux? The article was deleted. The list criteria of Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming is quite clear and quite uncontroversial by requiring that scientists be notable; it's not POV pushing to not include Leroux. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Africangenesis inserting in a new results section? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm trying, and failing, to see any reason why I shouldn't just indef block. Perhaps someone can persuade me? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  @Africangenesis; your accusing me of hyperbolic comments in your response to me leaves me with the inpression there wasn't much introspection on your part prior to posting. Questioning the competence of admins is a very good way to ensure accusations of a battleground mentality are bolstered. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is clear that Africangenesis has a battleground approach to Climate Change. He had some previous trouble with it back in 2010, when this AE took place. For people who can't edit neutrally in a specific domain, topic bans can be considered. Since Africangenesis' record on admin boards about CC goes back two years, and his very first Wikipedia edits in 2007 were in the area of global warming, my thought is for an indefinite topic ban from the area of Climate Change. The ban could be appealed in six months if there is evidence of productive editing in other areas. If Africangenesis truly has no other interests than CC then this action would have the same effect as an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Makes sense to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur with EdJohnston. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Also agree with Ed. T. Canens (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing. Africangenesis is indefinitely banned from the topic of Climate Change on all pages of Wikipedia, including user talk, admin noticeboards and WP:Arbitration enforcement. He may participate regarding CC in admin pages and AE whenever his own behavior has previously been mentioned. He may file appeals against his own sanctions to admins, to AE, or to Arbcom in the usual way. This action is under the authority of WP:AC/DS. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing user

Mooretwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Mooretwin (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite topic ban on articles, discussions, and other content related to The Troubles, the Ulster banner and British baronets, imposed at [[84]]. The decision allowed for an appeal after six months. The decision was imposed on 10 February 2012, therefore six months passed on 10 August 2012.

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

I have abided by the topic ban for nearly eight months, and I would like it to be lifted. I have demonstrated restraint in this period and I have learned my lesson about making frivolous and retaliatory complaints against other editors. I acted in the "heat of the moment" and shall not do so again. Prior to the incident in question, I had successfully managed to avoid confrontation, edit wars, etc., for a period of two years.

I've largely restricted myself to updating sports articles, as a scan through "My Contributions" will testify. Not much collaboration, I'm afraid, although I did instigate a discussion that led to a consensus for merging an article: 1. I'll notify T. Canens. Mooretwin (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unreasonable, surely, if the ban were not lifted because of the single inocuous (and constructive) edit idenfitied by T. Canens. And why was I even banned from "British baronetcies" anyway? Bizarre. On the wider point, how is it possible to demonstrate collaborative editing if I am banned from all the topics about which I have sufficient knowledge to contribute? Mooretwin (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I was acting on a consensus of uninvolved admins in enacting the topic ban, I don't think it's appropriate for me to unilaterally lift it.

After a very quick look, I have a question for Mooretwin: Do you think this edit violate your topic ban from "... British baronets"? T. Canens (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions stay in place until and unless they are successfully appealed. Had Mooretwin actually asked for the baronetcies to be removed from the topic ban, I would likely have obliged. They did not.

I agree with Tznkai's proposed close. T. Canens (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in this but if this user has changed as he proved he is I am always for giving a second chance. Also he waited for 8 months while he could ask for this 2 months earlier. Adrian (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the baronets block, this was initially added to the standard troubles wording due to edit warring in that area by users like Vintagekits. It has long ceased to be an area of contention and an appeal two months ago by another user resulted in that part of the wording being struck from the remedy. While existing sanctions do still include the Baronets portion, it would seem harsh in this case to sanction an editor for a minor edit to a topic which they had never edited in a disruptive way in the past. Valenciano (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mooretwin, can you please link to examples of you working well on Wikipedia in the last six months, especially in highly collaborative ways? Furthermore, please notify T. Canens of this discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally I'm opposed to lifting indef sanctions on the basis of their being waited out. If we were putting somebody out of an area for a specific length of time we'd issue a ban of definite duration. HJ Mitchell is making a similar point (in an unrelated thread) below. Indef bans are issued to adjust behaviour until such time that it is fixed. Thus the only reason we have to lift such bans is demonstrable changes in the behaviour that led to the ban.
  In this case the diff Tim Canens lists above shows MooreTwin has in fact infringed the ban within the last week. For my money, even if we mark this down as a mistake MooreTwin's activities involved little collaboration with others. As harmonious collaborative editing is at the heart of the issue that led to MooreTwin's ban I'd be open to reviewing this again after MooreTwin shows more collaboration on site--Cailil ^talk 21:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the decision explicitly allows an appeal after 6 months time (which it did), I don't think it's reasonable to keep the sanction standing just on principle. However, maybe it is better to use a gradual approach. We can narrow the topic ban now, to give the user the chance to contribute positively in areas he is competent in, and consider the remaining ban later. Concretely, I suggest to limit the topic ban to The Troubles (which is a hotspot of trouble anyways) now, and to allow an appeal for the rest of the ban to be lifted in 3 to 6 months. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've no objection to dropping the clause about British baronetcies from this ban, but in my opinion the indef ban from WP:TROUBLES should stay in place. Mooretwin has an impressive block log and has been here at AE a lot. Unless he wants to present real data to show how collaborative he has been in the past six months I don't see any motive for lifting the ban. The mere passage of time is not enough. EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am broadly in agreement with Stephen Shultz, but also sympathetic to Cailil's viewpoint. I think we should open up an area that is close to (within broadly construed) the problem area and see how Mooretwin is able to edit in that area. This will allow us to actually see if Mooretwin's behavior has changed, or not.--Tznkai (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with the broad thrust above - I see no problem with lifting the Baronets ban - this was removed recently by the Arbcom from the Troubles ruling so I see no reason to leave it in place. However as above I agree with Ed - passage of time has nothing to do with Indefinite sanctions. The 6 month appeal process is there to give the person time to adjust and to show change.
  In short agree with Steven's suggestion reduce ban to cover troubles only, but leave in place indefinitely until MooreTwin shows more positive collaboration on site in other topic areas--Cailil ^talk 13:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I think there is consensus to remove the Baronetcies from the ban, narrow the ban to the Troubles directly, and revisit in three months.--Tznkai (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing - Mooretwin may now edit on the topic of British baronetcies but his indefinite ban from WP:TROUBLES remains in place. Per the original terms, appeal can be made every six months. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION

This all relates to WP:TROUBLES, specifically the discretionary sanctions under which user:Factocop was topic banned for 3 months on 25 September [85].

Also, ARBCOM attached 2 conditions to his unblocking on 6 September notification at user talk:Factocop (I haven't found on-wiki discussion leading to the unblock but will provide a link if I subsequently do).

1. "That Factocop is restricted to editing only from one account, and always when logged in."
2. "That Factocop does not use the revert tool (or any variation of it) at all - not even once, and not even to revert clear vandalism..."

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

It is alleged that 46.7.113.111 (talk) is Factocop (talk · contribs). If this is correct then

• All that ip's contributions in October 2012 are in violation of unblock condition 1
• All that ip's contributions to the main, talk and Wikipedia talk namespaces violate the topic ban
• [86], [87], [88] and [89] are violations of unblock condition 2.

For background and the raising of allegations, reading the discussions at Talk:Derry#Requested move:Derry to Londonderry. Talk:Derry#Requested move permalink is probably the easiest. The requested moves and this user's comments on them are tendentious and time-wasting.

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

My understanding is that prior warnings are not required for the unblock conditions.
I am unable to find a specific notification of the standard discretionary sanctions, but as Factocop has been sanctioned under them as recently as last month he cannot fail to be aware of them.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This all hinges on whether 46.7.113.111 (talk) is or is not Factocop (talk · contribs). At the help desk it was suggested I make a report here in the first instance rather than requesting a separate SPI.[90]. Factocop has been proven as a sockpuppeteer in the past, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Factocop/Archive. The allegations are based on behavioural evidence (partly enunciated at Talk:Derry#Requested move e.g. [91] (before discussion was moved). CodSaveTheQueen (talk · contribs), a proven sockpuppet of Factocop, was disruptive on a previous proposal to rename the Derry article to Londonderry, see the collapsed section at Talk:Derry#Possible moratorium.

I will place a link to this request at Talk:Derry to alert editors there. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Factocop: [92]
• 46.7.113.111: [93]

Just to say I am not Factocop, and this seems to be an attempt to derail a discussion. I have checked and Factocop is listed as RETIRED. I also checked an archived report [94]. Suggestions are that this user operates from London. I think the WHOIS function will perhaps show that I am not from London. I doubt Factocop would of moved to my location to avoid a wikipedia blocking but fair play to the lad if he has.46.7.113.111 (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Arbcom members don't often comment at ARBE. To get a CU, I would suggest someone files at SPI. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional behavioural evidence can be seen here with his socks and here as Factocop, notice the use of the underscore in editors names something which this IP did also with this edit Mo ainm~Talk 17:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but without the odd underscore, a user name just looks like a spelling mistake. Soz. Wont use an underscore again mo, ainm high, I will.46.7.113.111 (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the IPs geolocating to the UK, it should be borne in mind that 109.154.199.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was from Northern Ireland. Travel between the two parts of the island is easier than between the two parts of the UK. Other than the novelty of the UPC address being in a different jurisdiction, the topic area, style, diction and interaction with others shouts duck. RashersTierney (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So it's easier for him to move about Northern Ireland and the Republic but he'd much rather take expensive flights to Great Britain in order to edit Wikipedia? I'm not buying that explaination as why would any person after being blocked from a certain IP range, shell out money on flights in order to move to another part of the country to continue disruption which they'd probably know would be reverted anyway? So I don't think that the ip is Factocop. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think moving between the island of Great Britain and Ireland just to get a different IP range is rather significantly unlikely. However, travel between the two for the purposes of work, family, recreation, etc. is very common. All of the relevant contributions from this IP have been in October this year and none show any of the hallmarks of a new user. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact this IP just happened to appear in topics that Factocop was active in before he got blocked gives a strong hint that circumstantially at least this IP is him and he should have further sanctions placed upon him for breeching those he was already on. Also we must not forget that broadband IP locations do not always match where the user actually is and depends on the service providers exchange in use. I'm using my computer in Northern Ireland but my IP will trace many times to England. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is also possible to mask your IP as something different by using an appropriately located proxy server - say in this case one based in the Republic of Ireland. We also do have older most likely IP socks of Factocop from this old discussion to compare with - 81.187.71.75 and 84.93.157.59 both of which geolocate to England. Also add in this IP 87.113.26.186. All share common articles and discussions of interest i.e. - Eglinton, Giant's Causeway, things to do with Londonderry etc. etc. Yet those 3 IPs locate to different parts of England. We could always add {{IPsock|Factocop|blocked=yes}} to this IP's user page? Mabuska ^(talk) 17:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The anonymous editor in question is not using an anonymising proxy. He or she is in the Republic of Ireland. The question is whether the behavioural evidence is compelling enough for us to conclude that Factocop has travelled or moved to this new location. I humbly submit that it will take rather a lot more than "the IP edits the same topic" to determine there is a connection. You need to make a more detailed submission of appropriate evidence, which ought to answer questions like: Did Factocop behave as this IP does? Do they push a similar edit or agenda? Is their writing style the same? And so on. The AE administrators may want to refer this matter to WP:SPI for investigation by a more experienced hand; socking is not really AE's area of skill (nor, apparently, that of the other commentators here). HTH, AGK [•] 17:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The IP in question geolocates to Dublin, Ireland; someone who knows where Factocop has operated out of could answer whether or not a connection is plausible/likely. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The IPs in the SPI archive all came from the UK. T. Canens (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Checkuser comment: It is technically  Possible that the IP discussed in this complaint is operated by Factocop, but I could not make a more firm assertion of socking at this point. The IP should probably be blocked as an obvious sock of somebody (though not provably of Factocop), but I do not think checkuser data supports action against Factocop unless there is additional, behavioural evidence that proves a connection. I leave the question of whether this IP unarguably behaves like Factocop to the enforcement administrators. AGK [•] 11:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks a lot like griefing by one of the longer term sockmasters. The arguments are similar to Factocop's (but aso many others'); for me its the response here to Mo Anim that raises an eyebrow. I'm wondering if this might be the sockmaster who was egging Factocop on (and hounding Mo Anim), rather than Factocop himself: see User:Carnival Fred and User:Borundi 499--Cailil ^talk 11:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Upon looking in detail, I have to agree this looks like an unrelated sockmaster pulling a fast one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• AGK is correct that the IP should be blocked regardless. On the evidence before us, I agree that there is not enough evidence for us to conclude that the IP is Factocop. /wave my SPI clerk hat T. Canens (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, IP hardblocked 3 months. T. Canens (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Apteva (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Hopefully the incivility and inappropriate posting of off topic messages to WP:MOS talk pages will be recognized and cleaned up.

Per talk page guidelines such notices are to be deleted or archived. I deleted and archived to my user talk page, as they were a complaint about my conduct. I ask that anyone reading this liberally delete any off topic sections or responses from Wikipedia talk:MOS, and warn the editor who placed it there. The incivility there is totally inappropriate and needs to stop now. Apteva (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

The enforcement that is specified in "Enforcement by block" is a brief block. In my estimation the warning of a block for repeating, such as this edit[95] should be sufficient.

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#All parties reminded

The talk page of a guideline is not the place to make accusations. It is ironic to accuse someone of being disruptive by being disruptive.

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

1. 13 October 2012 Restored an inappropriate discussion that had been deleted
2. 13 October 2012 Then used this section to accuse another editor of acting inappropriately, instead of at their talk page.
3. 11 October 2012 Our own article on the comet does not capitalize the comet. Why should the MOS?
4. 29 September 2012 The section explained where one should be spelled out and where it should be written as a number, so I gave an example. It was such an obvious need, that it did not need to be discussed. What needed to be discussed though was why Neotarf thought it was not a good example. A question on my user page or on the talk page was warranted before an automatic revert. Neotarf exhibits ownership of the MOS and only likes to use their edits, and does not even like changes to the talk page,[ ] reverting closure of an RFC instead of just moving on. [removed because that particular edit was not done by Neotarf]

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

1. Warned on 12 October 2012 by Apteva (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on 4 October 2012 by Roscelese (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Neotarf appears to be a relatively new editor who may have quickly adopted the attitude of incivility at WP:MOS. My recommendation is a warning but nothing more severe. There very first edit, however[96] indicates some previous experience with WP.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

14 October 2012

Apteva has a pet theory about dashes that is combined in some way with a theory about capitalization, based on something remembered from a primary school grammar class, and has been pushing this theory at multiple forums. This thread is perhaps representative. Many editors on many forums have spent a lot of time and effort patiently explaining MOS and how the current consensus about style was reached, but Aptiva continues to insist that these are "spelling errors".

Attempts to discuss this on Apteva's talk page have been met with statements like "I see no reason for discussing things that are totally obviously wrong. I only opened an RM for moving Mexican-American War because I knew that it had previously been discussed ad nauseum and produced an absurd choice" and "I feel like Clint Eastwood "go ahead ... make my day".

An attempt at WT:MOS to get more community input into whether there is approval for this type of behavior was simply deleted by Apteva.

Apteva has a history of simply getting rid of other editors' legitimate comments by hatting them, by changing the archiving bot so they archive quickly, by refactoring discussions in the middle of a thread so the comments of editors whose ideas Apteva doesn't like are in an entirely different section, (diffs are available for all of these) or by simply deleting them, as here and here. This goes way beyond what is permitted by WP:TPO.

Most recently Apteva has started "canvassing" -- posting the rejected theory on the talk pages of editors who voted against these repeated proposals. [97] [98]

I'm not sure exactly what Apteva's issue is about my edits, or what this has to do with Arbitration Enforcement . If there was some disagreement, it should have been taken to the talk page, not here.

The so-called "prior warnings" are completely bogus.

The idea that I am subject to some "editing restriction" is also ridiculous.

Apteva seems to be accusing me of socking: "There [sic] very first edit, however indicates some previous experience with WP." I would encourage whatever procedures there are for checking this to be performed, so that my name can be cleared, with the stipulation that they also be performed on Apteva and IP 146.90.43.8, and that Apteva declare any IP used at MOS and ANI. Apteva's stated preference for editing under IPs has been openly acknowledged at the alternate account, however Apteva's user page only started acknowledging this account three weeks ago. [99]

--Neotarf (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what behavior Apteva is accusing Neotarf of. Yes, Neotarf tends to defend the MOS against changes; and yes Neotarf seems to have been familiar with WP before making this account. Where's the problem in that? As for the other IP editor that Apteva mentions, that seems likely to be another one of his socks, but it's hard to know for sure. Apteva is well known for using multilple accounts, for being contentious, and for editing mostly as an IP (as he says on one of his talk pages); see also sockpuppet case and checkuser case. Dicklyon (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior I am concerned with is using a guideline talk page as ANI or as a user talk page. It was inappropriate for Dicklyon to do it, and what made it appropriate for Neotarf to triple the offense by putting it back? A user should be able to see that since the comments were removed for being off topic they should not be put back. Contentious means that I contend that an error exists. A better word for me than contentious is tenacious. I know that I am right about the Mexican-American War issue, and I will stick to it no matter how long it takes to fix the article so that it is right. But I do not make it a full time job - there are other errors to fix as well. Please do not bring the "other IP" into this conversation. What someone else does is not relevant to this particular issue: Is Neotarf being uncivil? That is the sole question being asked. If the "other IP" has been uncivil, open a case against them and discuss them there. Am I the accuser lily white? Yes. I only use multiple accounts in an appropriate manner, and my user page clearly states that this is not my primary account, this is an alternate account. Occasionally newbies will revert deletions of user warnings from user pages that that user has deleted, but experienced editors know that deleting a warning counts as seeing the warning, and the warning does not need to be restored. Final results of course, like a notice that the account has been indef'd are moot, because the user has already been blocked, and unless they used a sock to delete the notice, thus identifying themself as a possible sock, it is impossible for them to delete it - and if someone else does delete it, then it does get replaced, or whatever is appropriate. I do not know why Neotarf thought it was appropriate to replace the text on the talk page that had been moved to the user page, but they do need to know in no uncertain terms that talk pages are only for discussing the associated subject page, or in the case of a user, the associated subject. Otherwise, talk pages are not for discussing the subject of the article, only the content of the article. And certainly not for discussing the conduct of one editor, but only the conduct of all of the editors who are editing that particular talk page and associated page. That is what the word disruption means - interrupting the flow of discussion to allow a consensus opinion to form. Do I let others answer - not as much as I could, and I have backed off of answering quite as often. So the answer to the question asked by Dicklyon, is that Neotarf is only being accused of incivility and inappropriate use of a talk page, about me and about the IP. Community warnings of bad behavior go at community discussion pages like ANI, and within the first 50 edits, Neotarf participated in an ANI discussion, so I know that they know that they exist. But assuming they just started using a user account in November 2011, and this is not one of a dozen that has been used before, the user is still less than a year later a Newbie and deserves a warning, not a block, in my opinion. User warnings go on user talk pages. In building consensus the rule is to address the issue, not the issuee. Apteva (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see my comments above at #Comments by others about the request concerning Dicklyon as they apply to both cases. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

You linked to a "editors reminded" remedy, not anything actionable. For that matter, you did not request an action. Please clarify.--Tznkai (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user

Hearfourmewesique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the subject of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive104#Hearfourmewesique

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[100]

It has been almost 10 months since the topic ban, and it was not violated once. I have also embraced a much more cool headed approach to this topic as a whole. Please give me a chance to prove that I can be a valuable editor.

• Note to Tijfo098: it really has nothing to do with ARBPIA, which I have been fully respecting ever since the topic ban. Aside from the fact that I've been politely pointing out ad hominem attacks and expressing support for the existence of an article about persecution by Muslims in a civil manner, is there anything you perceive as "behavior issues"? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tznkai - :I will look for it a little later, have to go soon. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Remark: I've been having a hard time with my internet connection lately, hopefully will have access in two days (it's never steady since I'm a frequent traveler) so I can look into my history. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• To Tijfo098: Volunteer Marek was consistent in making sure to smear almost each and every "keep" vote, using borderline personal attacks at times, in repeated – and unmasked – attempts to discredit each voter (to quote WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."), as well as reasserting the closing admins with notes restating the obvious, in a manner that can be perceived only as excessively persuasive. Examples: [101] [102] While the expression "in a manner worthy of the finest of spammers" is quite tongue-in-cheek, it's still far from violating WP:CIVIL. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with whatever other admins want to decide, though I personally would recommend against it. NW (Talk) 18:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was he topic banned? I never noticed [103] [104] [105]. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is has to do with WP:ARBPIA area?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@H: "in a manner worthy of finest of spammers" is not a polite expression. And in the same conversation you complain about "the obvious and borderline ad hominem remarks" presumably said by someone else. WP:KETTLE. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hearfourmewesique, can you please link to examples of you working well on Wikipedia in the last six months, especially in highly collaborative ways?--Tznkai (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Two thoughts occur (my remarks on the AE report that led to this ban are worth reading for context). One is that an indefinite topic ban, though not infinite, is at the more severe end of the spectrum of sanctions we impose at AE (and, having just re-read the original AE report) I'm as convinced now as I was then that the ban is just), so I'm inclined against lifting it before a year has elapsed. The second is that I'd like to know how Hearfourmewesique thinks their presence in the topic area could be of benefit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting on examples, but I see no purpose to a minimum sentencing attitude if there is any good reason to lift a restriction. We're not serving justice or anything like that.--Tznkai (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is now a week since Tznkai asked Hearfourmewesique asked to 'link to examples of ... working well on Wikipedia in the last six months.' HJMitchell made a similar request. Since no examples have been provided, I suggest that the appeal be declined. It does not make sense for Hearfour to open an appeal if he is unable to follow up with answers. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Unless Hearfour posts within the next 48 hours or so, I agree that this should be closed. T. Canens (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Apteva (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Hopefully the incivility and inappropriate posting of off topic messages to WP:MOS talk pages will be recognized and cleaned up.

Per talk page guidelines such notices are to be deleted or archived. I deleted and archived to my user talk page, as they were a complaint about my conduct. I ask that anyone reading this liberally delete any off topic sections or responses from Wikipedia talk:MOS, and warn the editor who placed it there. The incivility there is totally inappropriate and needs to stop now. Apteva (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#All parties reminded

The remedy that I am recommending is "Enforcement by block" a brief block.

The talk page of a guideline is not the place to make accusations. It is ironic to accuse someone of being disruptive by being disruptive.

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

1. 13 October 2012 Section was inappropriately added to the guideline talk page. I deleted it and moved it to my talk page.[107] Another editor restored it onto the guideline talk page.[108]
2. 13 October 2012 Section name was inappropriately added to the talk page. An admin finally closed the thread with the admonition that "This page is for discussing the MOS, not specific users."[109]
3. 16 October 2012 Continuing to revert talk page entries. In this case I had removed comments that were inappropriate with ones that were better, and Dicklyon using an edit summary warning not to delete other's entries, deleted my entry.

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

1. Warned on [110]
2. Warned on 4 October 2012
3. Warned on 16 October 2012 by Apteva (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:Dicklyon is no stranger to WP:Point. In this edit[111] it is asserted that "in proper names" doesn't mean "in all proper names". Well duh. Hyphens are not used in Sun or in Moon, but guess what, no one has been able to find a proper name that uses an endash, which is what they were trying to say, even though it is not true. The idea was that adding some would stop one editor, me, from saying that the MOS says that proper names use hyphens. Well I can still say that the MOS says that proper names use hyphens because the word some means that Sun and Moon do not use a hyphen - and is totally ridiculous to think that adding some means that endashes are either ever or never used. What it implies, if you were to think that it was referring only to the times that hyphens and endashes were used, that hyphens were used some of the time but endashes were used most of the time which even if all of the comets in the world used an endash in the name and all of the airports and wars used an endash, that would still mean that endash was rarely used, as the cases where Dicklyon thinks that endashes are used in proper names are far fewer than the cases where hyphens are used, so it is just poor grammar to use some to mean most. But rewriting the MOS just to try to stop one editor from wanting to correct the punctuation of a title is just absurd.

In the discussion of moving two articles, Dicklyon pointed out three uses of that name, and failed to point out that oh yes the vast majority do not follow that usage. On their talk page today[112] they asserted that if some reliable sources use something that is sufficient to use that for an article title, when that is definitely not how choices are made. We use the majority, and the most authoritative. In the link, "numerous sources" is 17% - and a reference to the official naming of comets says they only use spaces and hyphens, yet Dicklyon, who has an engineering background IRL, insists that they should use an endash.[113] That in itself is a good example of disrupting WP to try to make a point.

In one of the edit summaries Dicklyon wrote "for Apteva to use this excuse to hide discussion about his disruption is not OK", as if I was deleting a discussion from ANI. User appears to be under the misconception that guideline talk pages are notification of disruption pages, and wanted to make certain that all of the other editors working on that page knew that an editor was being warned about disruption. Who is such a notice for? For the disrupter or for everyone else? Had the notice been placed where it should have been, on my talk page, deleting it is acceptable and a confirmation that it has been seen, if not actually read. Putting it on the talk page of the guideline was totally inappropriate and it should have been deleted by anyone who had seen it.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 14 October 2012

Apteva is correct that I accused him of disruption on WT:MOS. I stand by that. While he claimed in defense that "I am pretty sure that Noetica and others have posted many more times than I", here, the contributors evidence clearly supports my contention that he was dominating WT:MOS since introducing his idiosyncratic theory about en dashes and proper names on Sept. 24. It has been a rather disruptive campaign, not just there but at multiple RM discussions and other places. He needs to back off a bit, especially as it is clear that he has found zero support for his theory.

His evidence of so-called prior warnings to me is absurd.

Apparently I am being accused of ignoring advice to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the MOS. Yes, I confess, I have personalized the current mess as being something brought on by Apteva, and I seek advice on alternative approaches, since weeks of addressing his specific issue has only caused him to ramp up the disruption.

Dicklyon (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, as a quick scan of WT:MOS will show, unpleasant behaviour is all too common. A culture seems to have grown up in which regular MOS editors react collectively and aggressively to any questioning or challenging of existing guidance which they support. In this specific case:

• Apteva seems to have been unwilling to debate the issues involved in the guidance in the MOS over the use of hyphens and en-dashes in compound words and to consider carefully the meaning of the relevant parts of the MOS in their context. For example, the full sentence in which there has been a dispute over the addition of "some" is "Hyphenation also occurs in bird names such as Great Black-backed Gull, and in proper names such as Trois-Rivières and Wilkes-Barre." When X occurs in Y there is no necessary implication that it is present in every Y, as Apteva seems to think. His or her posts have, in my view, been somewhat confused and repetitive, so that responding properly to them is time-consuming and to that extent (and that extent only) "disruptive".
• However, I see no evidence of bad faith on his or her part. It's clear from the talk page that he or she did not initiate the use of aggressive language or respond in kind. The following comments were directly addressed to him or her by editors other than Dicklyon and Neotarf: "That doesn't mean that a small group of tendentious editors can form a "local consensus" at WP:AT to magically sweep away a much larger and longer-lasting community-wide consensus at MOS (despite the fact that you personally are trying to pull of exactly this as we speak ...)"; "while Apteva wages several connected campaigns at several scattered locations. He or she is initiating RM discussions and the like for pointy 'political' purposes, in a most disruptive way".

What's needed is for all contributors WT:MOS to assume good faith, not just those editors Apteva mentions here. How to achieve this is another question, to which I don't have an answer. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears to me that Apteva is editing in good faith, and simply doesn't understand the points they're disputing. But many of the diffs Apteva presents show nothing wrong, and some aren't even relevant. — kwami (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

As I stated in the related request. Please link to the exact remedy you wish enforced and clearly explain what action you want taken. We're not here just for your general complaints.--Tznkai (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So far there is nothing here to take action on. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User making enforcement request

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

Users against whom sanctions are being requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

recently enacted WP:ARBR&I motion concerning enabling edits by banned editors ([114]) as well as the remedies of the recent review that refer to TrevelyanL85A2

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

1. [115] Trolling IP socks of Echigo mole blocked at WP:SPI
2. [116] The Devil's Advocate declares people should chat to TrevelyanL85A2
3. [117] Zeromus1's reaction to Echigo mole's trolling
4. [118] Zeromus1 decides he can enable the trolling even after being told it's a malicious wikihounder and that I am recovering from open heart surgery
5. [119] Zeromus1 refers to Echigo mole as "someone commenting in his user talk space" knowing full well this is the banned editor Echigo mole. He invites The Devil's Advocate to join him in an RfC/U on me. He knows I am acutely ill.
6. [120] The Devil's Advocate himself threatens to open an RfC/U on me on behalf of the AE banned editor TrevelyanL85A2, having received an email from TrevelyanL85A2 requesting that he do so following TrevelyanL85A2's block.

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

1. [121] One of several warnings to Zeromus1
2. The Devil's Advocate has been warned on multiple occasions by arbitrators and senior adminitrstaors about his conduct vis-a-vis TrevelyanL85A2 and Echigo mole. He has ignored all those warnings. Here is a latest example from User talk:MastCell.[122]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Comment TDA has claimed that TrevelyanL85A2's arbcom sanctions and his AE block are due to me rather than the conduct of TrevelyanL85A2 himself. [127][128] Statements like that, which have now degenerated to rants, are in direct contradiction to decisions first of arbitrators and then of administrators at AE. Since TDA has been continuing to make statements of this kind for close on three months, even after warnings, why should he be surprised in any way at all that there should now be consequences? Mathsci (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment Here is some additional off-wiki chronology which might place The Devil's Advocate's "popping up" in a more realistic context than the one he has suggested. Sept 28, nocturnal pains later diagnosed as heart attack. Sept 29, 30 repetition of the same. Oct 1 advised by nurse friend to go immediately to A&E ward of UCL. Oct 2 admitted and not permitted to leave hospital because of severe heart condition and high blood pressure. Oct 4 echocardiagram. Oct 5 angiogram at Heart Hospital. Oct 8 triple bypass operation. Oct 13 discharged to convalesce. Oct 15 receive hate mail through wikipedia mailing system, apparently from DeviantArt group or other disgruntled editors, threatening to make my real life a misery. Mathsci (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment The Devil's Advocate has resumed his disruptive interpretation of my editing that formed a large part of his output in July and August, when the motions were under discussion.[129] More disturbingly Zeromus1 and The Devils' Advocate have today made it clear that they intend to continue editing effectively as proxies of TrevelyanL85A2 in pressing for an RfC/U. Here is Zeromus1's latest suggestion, before he's even made 200 edits to wikipedia.[130]: "At what point do you think an RFC/U will be appropriate?" And here is The Devil's Advocate's response:[131] "Personally, I think it is appropriate to wait at least until the AE case is resolved." That seems to be yet another quite unambiguous statement of their joint intent to continue the disruptive campaign of the editors site-banned under WP:ARBR&I. In July and August when the motions were formulated, The Devil's Advocate pushed his own disruptive counterproposals in an evasive but ultimately unsuccessful way. It's no different here: on the basis of his past conduct, very little credibility can be attached to The Devil's Advocate's assurances that his statements about RfC/U's are merely a matter of politeness and show no intent. The latest posting of Zeromus1[132] indicates that he wants to use the RfC/U as sort of private star chamber to right various injustices. He writes, "In addition to the current issue involving you and Cla68, I think an RFC/U about Mathsci also should cover some of the editors he pursued before I came on the scene, such as Ludwigs2, Miradre and SightWatcher." It must have dawned on Zeromus1 that the kind of disruptive vigilantism he is proposing will only get him banned from wikipedia. The Devil's Advocate's reponse was evasive [133], presumably because he knows that going down that highly disruptive path can only lead to a site-ban. The Devil's Advocate nevertheless is still saying that I have to be "dealt with" in some way: he has tied himself to TrevelyanL85A2's disruption-only campaign. There lies his error. He appears to have committed himself to the revenge campaign of Captain Occam. If Zeromus1 is now mentioning Ludwigs2, a site-banned edtor and one of Captain Occam's heros, that places more questionmarks next to Zeromus1's prior editing history on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Zeromus1 I agree with Professor marginalia that Zeromus1 seems to be connected in some way with the DeviantArt group. that's because of all the things he's mentioning which no newbie would know about. I'm not going to discuss the problems with his editing, beyond saying that he is not currently adhering to wikipedia editing policy but appears to trying push a minority viewpoint by ignoring the principles laid out in the original 2010 case. But his whole attitude and the comments that he has been making in project space seem indistinguishable from the common traits of SightWatcher, Woodsrock, TrevelyanL85A2, Ferahgo-the-Assassin and Captain Occam described in the review. In his latest diff, he uses almost the same phraseology as TrevelyanL85A2 and SightWatcher to describe some terrible fate that might befall him.[134] Zeromus1 cannot say what it is, but seems not to realize that The Devil's Advocate has made his own choices about how he edits in article and project space. He writes, "I'm just looking for any way to stop the same thing from happening to me that's now happening to you." So far half a dozen users have pointed out that his account looks like a sockpuppet account. With his first edit to User talk:Yfever and later edits tracking my edits on WikiProject Cities, that is hardly surprising. But then he writes, in a manner indistinguishable from SightWatcher and TrvelyanL85A2, "Can you think of any way it would be possible to stop this besides an RFC/U? I initially considered raising the issue at WP:WQA, but that appears to no longer exist, and Mathsci also has already told me not to post in his user talk. But maybe there are some other dispute resolution options that I don't know about." In other words, is there any other way to continue the campaign of harassing Mathsci with fake processes to "write him out of the equation". I don't know whether Zeromus1 is a sockpuppet of TrevelyanL85A2 or another member of the DeviantArt group, but he is certainly giving every appearance of that. Zeromus1's 200 edits coupled with his urge, inexplicable as a newbie, to use any possible process against me (WQA, RfC/U), places a huge questionmark against the nature of Zeromus1's account. He is in cahoots with The Devil's Advocate, which does not improve matters for either of them. Mathsci (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[135][136]

I haven't restored any edits by Echigo Mole, and in the fourth diff linked to by Mathsci, I said that I'm not going to. I haven't violated the restriction, and I don't intend to violate it. One thing I find strange is that a few minutes before he made this report, Mathsci edited the restriction in question to change what it links to. His edit is here. He seems to have edited the arbitration ruling just to make it easier to accuse us of violating it.

I am troubled by the lengths Mathsci goes to to pursue editors who have opposed him on R&I articles, even after they have disengaged from the topic, because he's given a lot of indications I'll soon be subject to this myself. I don't see what his heart condition has to do with that.

If Mathsci is concerned about the effects of Wikipedia on his health, I think an important question is whether this report and his other recent activity really is what's best for him. If he's concerned about that, why doesn't he spend a few weeks away from Wikipedia while he recovers? He could go for a walk in the countryside, read a book, watch a movie, or all three. And if he can do those things without thinking about Wikipedia, I promise it'll make him feel a lot better than what he's currently doing. This page seems relevant. I'm sure that if I did something terrible while he's taking a break, someone else would report it, and someone else also would eventually block Echigo Mole's sockpuppets. I don't know what to make of his insistence that he needs to do all these things himself, except that maybe he cares too much about Wikipedia to do what seems like it would be best for him. Zeromus1 (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The restriction Mathsci is citing only applies to restoring reverted edits by banned editors connected to this topic area. I have restored no such edits, nor has Zeromus as far I as I know. Mathsci is completely misrepresenting the nature of that restriction. His characterization of my actions is likewise so obscenely distorted that it would take a voluminous amount of material to point out of every single error. Suffice to say, the cited diffs clearly do not say what he suggests they say and in a response on my own talk page I said I do not want to pursue an RfC/U at this time. This request is completely frivolous.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci you initiated all this recent discussion by going after me in an unrelated AE case directly above this one. You mentioned Zeromus there as well, so there is nothing inexplicable about this situation. All I did was rebut your accusations and ask you to stop hounding me.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@T.Canens An interaction ban would just create pointless drama and sanction me without good cause. I think you should just close this with a warning to Mathsci about hounding. Anything else would just give this complaint far more credibility than it deserves.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NW, I don't think anyone at the talk page for R&I will seriously suggest that my participation there has been disruptive and, in fact, we have been gradually working towards consensus on contentious wording. Mathsci is just going after me for the same old stuff he has been going after me for since I objected to his conduct towards Trevelyanl and suggested that he be admonished for it, not sanctioned as he says. No one gave his objections much attention despite him leaving a long screed about me on the request for amendment that I essentially ignored, going after me in three separate AE cases before this one, a completely unrelated WQA, and a BLPN discussion he initiated about another completely unrelated article that was again not taken seriously by any editor. For the past few weeks, following the request for amendment, I have completely left Mathsci alone and barely thought of the man. I only got sucked back into a dispute with Mathsci now because he tried to hijack an AE thread directly above to go after me, see the collapsed section in that request.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, that is not even close to a reasonable interpretation of my comments. I said that you have been going after me for objecting to your conduct towards Trev. During that AE case that got Trev blocked, one admin at AE called out your conduct as inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys really not seeing what Mathsci is doing? He pops up all of a sudden, weeks after we last interacted, to accuse me of tag-teaming and meat-puppetry in some parenthetical remark on another AE case that had nothing to with me because I somewhat agreed with a position some other editors took on a completely different article than the one being discussed at AE. When I asked him not to accuse me of such things without evidence he starts rambling about Trev and acting as if I should somehow know that one of the editors in the discussion said offensive things to some other person on some other matter. After I asked him to leave me alone and stop following me he retorts by repeating those claims, then claiming that I sought sanctions against him, when I did no such thing, and claiming I "misrepresented" his edits. After I challenged him on this claim of misrepresentation he made the bizarre accusation that I somehow was casting doubt on his health issues, when, again, I did no such thing. If you guys can honestly look over that discussion and conclude that I am provoking or harassing Mathsci, rather than the other way around, then I guess there is nothing I can do to convince any of you. He is just repeating the same attacks and claims that he made throughout the request for amendment and none of the Arbs or admins apparently saw any basis for taking action against me then, so I don't see how you can justify going after me over those same issues now.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, I am not sure what you want me to say, but I am certainly not trying to hurt you in any way. You chose to accuse me of tag-teaming and meat-puppetry while recovering from major surgery. I didn't force you to do that. All I did was ask you to leave me alone, but you aren't doing that and just forcing me to defend myself, which I don't even really like doing. Please just let this go, because it isn't doing anyone any good.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Future, this is just a typical pattern of Mathsci doing something he has every reason to believe will provoke an editor, over-reacting to the predictable response to said provocation, and then pursuing that editor until an admin decides said editor should be sanctioned. You should not continue indulging this disruptive cycle. This AE case itself is just a part of that cycle and should also not be indulged. I think giving him a very stern and clear warning about hounding would suffice in this case. Just look at the past week of article contributions from me, Mathsci, and Cla68. While Cla and myself have made numerous substantive contributions to multiple articles, Mathsci has been almost completely consumed by this effort to go after other editors. Mathsci makes valuable contributions to the project, but when he sets his mind to going after other editors those contributions essentially disappear.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, I was asked a question and I answered it. I have not initiated any discussions about an RfC/U myself so essentially you are complaining about me having the good manners to respond when someone asks me a direct question or being open and honest about what someone else said to me in an e-mail. The truth is that I have no interest in continuing our little dispute, but you seem to want to keep this dispute going until you get whatever it is you want out of it or you are forced to stop. How about you work on some articles instead of pursuing this vendetta? I imagine that would be far less stressful and far better for you than what you are doing here. Don't want you to think I am being patronizing by saying that, but this really is just a waste of your energies.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being evasive Mathsci. Any speculation as to my intent is pointless, because I have already explained it. To put it simply, I am not ruling out filing an RfC/U regarding your conduct at some point in the future due to my own concerns if I fail to see a change for the better, but I am not considering such action at this time. Such was my stated position at the request for amendment and that remains my position. You can choose to believe me a liar, but that would just be, like, your opinion, man.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, I'm hatting off this whole sub-thread, including both of the repeated mutual calls for sanctions. Please just stop this now, both. I'll repeat: whether or not it's wise to do so, Mathsci has the right to remove whatever Echigo Mole edits he finds, if and when he pleases, from whatever page, period. You may think it might not be a wise thing for him to do so, but reacting to such a removal with protests and accusations and calls for sanctions against Mathsci is highly inappropriate. As such, Cla68's initial involvement in this thread is thoroughly regrettable, although I don't think it alone would be grounds for sanctions against him. But such sanctions might be called for if Cla68 keeps on harping on this theme. The problem now is that as long as M. is actively pressing for sanctions against C. because of the way C. has been talking about him, C. will continue to have a reason for defending himself and, by doing so, keep talking about M. Thus, this enforcement thread just serves to perpetuate the offensive situation, which is not good for anybody. Therefore, people, please just let it go now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a bold edit to hat this conversation. Probably beyond process but I suggest WP:IAR applies, nevertheless I'm happy for it to be undone. User:Cla68 as an uninvolved editor it appears you have a bee in your bonnet about Mathsci, from what I can see he has taken the suggestion to drop the stick. I suggest you do the same before you exhaust the patience of the people trying to avoid the issue of the appropriate sanction. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - this exchange between me and Zerosum1 may be interesting [147] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This request (unfortunately) did not address any article-related edits of YvelinesFrance (some of which are troubling, see this exchange), but I agree that an interaction ban with Mathsci is indeed for the reason given by T. Canens. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• All I can say is that I was baffled by the suggestion from The Devil's Advocate that the distinction between indefinitely blocked players and banned players was important enough to wikilawyer over: "Indefinite blocks are certainly a way to implement a ban, but Trev has not been banned. The restriction also does not prohibit interactions with such editors, only restoring their edits." aprock (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Admins, I think you should examine the behavior of all the parties named in this request. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Insofar as it's relevant, I'd just like to say that for short period of time that I've participated on the R&I talk page The Devil's Advocate has provided a model of non-partisan engagement. He's perhaps the only participant whose opinion on the subject I haven't been able to transparently identify and by not foregrounding his POV he's been effective, I think, in building consensus. I've no particular opinion on this somewhat Byzantine process and the various infractions of policy that are purported to have occurred. However, the zeal with which certain matters are pursued by some editors, the discretionary powers held by this body and the potential for abuse, gives me pause about the wisdom of participating at all in the R&I and related articles. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Shortened version. Zeromus1's repeating the familiar spiel we've seen replayed by a half dozen proxies recruited to circumvent R/I sanctions. Echigo mole socks have yet again flocked in to exploit the situation to settle his past own scores. There was an arb resolution about a month ago that should have helped resolve -at least- the absurd and ridiculously protracted wailing and gnashing of teeth in DR when Mathsci reverted site banned user Echigo mole's sock's posts on user talk pages. And there are 3 reactions to Echigo mole's re-entry here worth noting: Zeromus1's, a new user with a "Boy Scout" style verve to volley those troll posts into doing "good deeds" and righting the "great wrongs" (supposedly) against former-to-his-registering blocked proxies-; and those of The Devil's Advocate and Cla68 who actively participated in that one month old arb enforcement inquiry wherein the issue of reverting Echigo mole's socks seemed settled, and who are now seeming to suffer amnesia or some kind of delusion the decision then didn't really apply to his socks now!

Personally - I think that The Devil's Advocate and Cla68 are (likely unwittingly, albeit cluelessly} making a bigger mess in R/I dispute resolutions because they're more fixated on Mathsci than they are they are familiar with the voices and histories of the trolls and puppets. I would ask them to disengage. His "manners" are not what's disrupting these involved articles. The disruptions R/I has been most plagued with since the decision have been off-site recruitments, banned user socking, the SPA crap. Truth is, I wish all wikipedians-and their readers-would/could tune out those spouting the obvious "nonsense noise" without any need to run to admins, arbs, etc to "silence". But the trolls (such as Echigo mole) will keep reeling in the suckers. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• I'd be somewhat inclined to block TDA as well, still considering it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is quite enough. If someone wants to block TDA then go ahead, but this thread needs to be closed now. Since Cla68 won't take Fut.Perf.'s more gentle advice, there's little choice but to do it forcibly. Zeromus1 (talk · contribs), The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs), and Cla68 (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from commenting on, or interacting with, Mathsci (talk · contribs), broadly construed, anywhere on Wikipedia. T. Canens (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mathsci (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBR&I, block of one month or longer because of a gross violation of one-way AE interaction ban: he is not allowed to mention me anywhere on wikipedia.[148][149]

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

1. [150]
2. [151]

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

not applicable

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Cla68's conduct was already highly disruptive during the recently closed AE request (Zeromus1 & The Devil's Advocate). He inserted himself for no very good reason, except perhaps that he had some old score to settle with me. He decided from the outset not to distinguish between a long term community banned wikihounder (Echigo mole) and a user in good standing but very poor health (me). Echigo mole's trolling/disruption had been the subject of a recently passed motion by the arbitration committee. Cla68's behaviour was unethical because he chose to harass me during a period of recuperation from major open heart surgery. His conduct resulted in a one-way interaction ban. If he objected to that ban, he was aware that the standard path is a formal appeal here. He made no such appeal. Instead, in an inexplicable act of escalation and arrogance, Cla68 requested an arbom case centred on me (Race and intelligence II). He has claimed on User talk:Timotheus Canens that he has no previous interactions with me, but that is false, as the toolserver interaction tool shows. [152] His history with me goes back quite a long way. In view of the recent arbcom review and even more recent motion, where inordinate amounts of arbcom's time were wasted, it is absolutely clear that no arbcom case will result. Besides Cla68's grudges fall entirely outside that case and seem to be a personal problem. Given his recent interaction ban, this needless escalation, lack of proportion and attempted disruption warrant a block of at least one month, possibly longer. Cla68 has had fair warning. His poor conduct already resulted in sanctions under WP:ARBCC. This seems to be a recurrence of the same problematic conduct, but now directed at a random person whom he happens to dislike (me).

@ Sir Fozzie: TrevelyanL85A2 broke his topic ban flagrantly on arbcom pages multiple times in July and August and no arbitrator lifted a finger. When the motion was passed and he continued his disruption on user talk pages, he was blocked within 24 hours after being reported here. So the arbitration committee does not automatically take charge of violations of bans. As other have pointed out Cla68's case request was not a request ti review his ban but a full blown case, WP:CANVASSING bemused parties, to further some grudge Cla68 has concerning me, probably totally unrelated to Echigo mole, Mikemikev, Race and and intelligence, site-banned users, proxy editing or anything else. The real title of the case should presumably be "Mathsci". Or have I missed something?

In any event I will not be available for any kind of case with Cla68 or any other wikifans for at least six months. I still have difficulty walking any distance; I have complicated documents to prepare related to my illness; I also have complex arrangements to make in returning to France in a way that will not endanger my sternum. Its hard to justify sanctioning me as a response to the actions of a community banned wikihounder. That would be feeding the troll. Nobody knows how to control him or where he'll pop up next. To me there is no call for a case, the RfArb should be turned down and Cla68 instructed to make an appeal here. This particular request for enforcement can be closed down without prejudice, to allow that to happen. Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)::Cla68 demand for a mutual interaction ban is just more of the disruptive nonsense we've had in the previous. There he shouted that the wikihounding by Echigo mole, several thousand edits, is my fault, I am to blame, it is not wikihounding. Instead of looking at the cumulative editing of Echigo mole and his army of socks, Cla68 decided to write that it was not wikihounding nbut instead a BATTLE between me and Echgo. Perhapsin Cla68's world Echigo mole should not have been community banned. He does not have multiple socks. he has not lied to unblocking administrators, etc, ect.[reply]

• Cla68's conduct resulted in the interaction ban. It is now continuing and worsening. His RfARb is not in fact either a direct appeal to arbcom against his interaction ban or a case related to my activities within WP:ARBR&I. Instead it is a deliberate escalation to a disruptive grudge-fest where Cla68 can settle old scores with me. However, with no incidents to speak of and no RfC/U, whether warranted or not, Cla68 seems to have omitted a huge number of preliminary steps in dispute resolution. And what exactly is the dispute? Sanctioning me as a result of the activities of Echigo mole is a non-starter: more attempts at disruption from Cla68. Please could someone stop him?

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[153]

We give a lot of leeway to folks to appeal to the Committee AE actions, as I've said there, it has a high bar to lead to reversing, but one-way interaction bans are pretty much inherently unbalanced, as this tends to leave one party free to snipe at the other incessantly, but then call administrators in when the person replies... which is not really a great way to resolve disputes. Would recommend to uninvolved administrators that this request be closed without action. SirFozzie (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be helpful if you all would go ahead and make the interaction ban involving me, Mathsci, The Devil's Advocate, and Zeromus1 mutual instead of one-way while the case request is under consideration. Cla68 (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a bit semantic; Cla has, in effect, appealed to Arbcom instead of using the page he had just been banned on. I feel that the arbitration request page is allowed under the spirit of the interaction ban, if not literally. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I would tend to disagree. The ArbCom case as filed by Cla68 appears to be almost entirely about Mathsci and only a minor point regarding whether or not the AE sanctions placed on Cla were appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I dont think an AE action can restrict somebody from going to ArbCom. Or at least, it shouldnt be allowed to do so. nableezy - 18:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hadn't thought of it that way. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Cla68 should have made a narrow appeal instead of trying to open a full case. But, still, AE is subsidiary to Arbcom, and it can't really forbid people from presenting their case to Arbcom. If the case is inadequate, arbs can simply decline politely. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps an appeal to ArbComm is permissible in the face of the ban. But this edit [154], which was made in response to notification of the ban, comments on Mathsci's behaviour (and indeed suggests that it has been deceptive) in direct, clear and conscious violation of the ban and with no possible excuses. Cla68 should be sanctioned for this edit alone. Spar-stangled (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This comment smells awfully socky. Arkon (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  He is really well informed about past history of this case. He mentions editors that were banned months ago. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I would decline this request, but I'll leave it open for at least one more person to sign off on it. I would say that interaction bans have no force if the sanctioned party is appealing the ban to ArbCom, which they (functionally) are. NW (Talk) 04:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Just close everything down, speedily: this request as well as the Arbcom case request. I agree with The Red Pen that the Arbcom filing objectively was a violation. There is a difference between an appeal against the sanction (which of course Cla is entitled to file, here or directly to the Arbs), and this kind of request for a full case. An appeal would be narrowly restricted in scope to discussing the justification of this particular sanction, and would involve only Cla and the administrator(s) who imposed it. But what he's been asking for instead is a whole big case with everybody involved, with the scope of discussing not Cla's sanction, but Mathsci and everybody else. Mathsci and everybody else hacking on each other again and again is precisely what these sanctions were meant to stop, so no, "Cla must not discuss Mathsci" means precisely what it says, and it does include Arbcom pages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sympathetic to Mathsci's request, but agree with the other admins that it should be declined. It looks like Arbcom will take any action that is necessary. If they send the matter back to us, we can think about it then. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]