Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive150

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Askahrc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

  Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

• Barney the barney barney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

(Please forgive the slightly unusual format; these two editors both have a history of the same style of NPA toward me, often support one another, have been warned in the same AE previously and recently began attacking me at the same time, so it made sense to include them both)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions

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

76.107.171.90

1. May 5, 2014 76.107.171.90 posted “Cap’n McDouche” on Guy's Talk page, containing the vulgarity in the title, an attempt to insult me with a homophobic profanity and many aspersions against myself and other editors (Littleolive oil & Liz), all while suggesting to other editors plans to get me blocked. He also suggests accusing me of violating a community block that does not exist, a tactic which has wasted the time of admins in the past (see further comments). WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS.

Barney the barney barney

1. May 4, 2014 Barney states that I am incompetent, likely due to a severe mental impairment that he links to.
2. May 4, 2014 Barney clarifies his remarks to state that regardless of what illness I do/don't possess, I am too grossly incompetent in every way to be aware of my own ignorance.
3. May 4, 2014 When Littleolive oil informed Barney that it was unacceptable to imply other editors have mental illnesses, Barney called her ignorant.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. April 3, 2014 AE Results discussion in which both Barney and 76 are judged to be violating NPA. The admin wished to block Barney completely, but settled for another warning.
2. April 3, 2014 76's 2 day blocking for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA while proclaiming that I was involved in a conspiracy to damage WP.
3. February 23, 2014 I noticed that an archived ANI had been tampered with by Barney, so I reverted the edit and reminded Barney that editing ANI Archives was frowned upon. Barney then told me that I was too incompetent to understand WP and insisted on reediting the archive. He was then sanctioned for edit-warring the archive.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked. (76, Barney)
• Barney placed on Pseudoscience Sanction Log for incivility and aspersion. (Barney, Barney)
• Both Barney and 76 participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on April 3, 2014.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

76.107.171.90 (talk) and Barney the barney barney have been sanctioned and repeatedly warned respectively for violating WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA toward me in the past. I have not pursued any interaction with either of them since then, but recently they have both begun making personal attacks and casting aspersions about my integrity, sexuality and mental health.

• 76.107.171.90 posted “Cap’n McDouche” on Guy's Talk page, accusing me of writing on an off-wiki page (the content was lifted from months-old postings on my Talk page and I had no involvement or input in their posting on the website, which the website openly states). 76 then attempted to insult me with unacceptably homophobic profanity:

"He has now posted another polemic on Tumbleman’s website in which he indicates that he is “investigating dicks” on Wikipedia. And while I have no doubt that Askahrc has an extreme interest in dicks, I think it’s high time that this situation be rectified."

This reflects the vulgarity 76 used with me previously and when he called someone a "diehard retard." 76 then bragged they've intentionally been trying to provoke me

"When I first goaded Askahrc into providing evidence against himself at his own sock puppet investigation more than two months ago I figured that Askahrc would be a self-rectifying problem once I got the ball rolling.")

and refers to me as a "hardcore bully" (I've never interacted with 76 except to get him to stop harassing me). 76 denounces Littleolive oil as "harassing" and Liz as "the consort of every major fringe pusher".

Finally, 76 proposes various ideas on how to get me blocked,

"I can think of several strategies, but I think the most obvious is to get him for being a meat puppet. Alternately, I could dust off the old community block (it’s still “on the books”)."

I presume the block's status is in quotes because both Barney and 76 have been falsely stating I have a community block even after admins have told them that I have none. This continuing falsehood has led to wasted time on an AN by an admin fooled into thinking there was an actual block on me.

• Barney posted on an AN board that I was too incompetent to contribute to sourcing a page, explaining that

"This may be due to the Dunning–Kruger effect."

The Dunning-Kruger effect states that grossly incompetent people are too ignorant to recognize their own mental disability, and compares its effect to severe brain injury. Barney further explains

"I do not really care what illnesses askahrc (talk · contribs) has. What I do accuse askahrc (talk · contribs) of is rank incompetence, contrary to WP:COMPETENCE, and lacking even the basic competence to understand that he's not competent." 1

then insists he has proof of my ignorance & incompetence without sharing it.

After referring to Dunning-Kruger as an illness himself, Barney then calls Littleolive oil ignorant for decrying his calling another editor mentally ill. This violates WP:CIVIL (and logic...).

76 and Barney each have a history of personal attacks, vulgarity and casting aspersions. They've been directly warned/sanctioned about this numerous times and yet continue to attack myself and others. The Cap'n (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I acknowledge Sandstein's request that any future AE's (let's hope not) be divided into separate filings for each involved editor for convenience. The Cap'n (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@76, this falls under ARBPSEUDO discretionary sanctions because A) Every single person you reference in your rant has been connected to WP:ARBPSEUDO in one way or another B) it's where you were warned to avoid this exact behavior (ie. accusing me of conspiring with someone associated with Pseudoscience), C) you specifically refer to wanting to stop "fringe pushers" in your rant.

Also, please note (as I mentioned on Guy's Talk and again here) that I did not write anything on that website. I only wrote what was on my talk page, which was entitled "Case Files," included no profanity, personal attacks or even the names of people I supposedly disagree with. The owner of the website edited and renamed it himself without my input. Please stop asserting that I added that material to the website or named it. The Cap'n (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sandstein Thank you.

@Barney, aside from the PA nature of constantly referring to my supposedly debilitating incompetency (with no diffs of any such incompetent acts), the condition of Dunning-Kruger that you link to describes the condition "Dunning has since drawn an analogy ("the anosognosia of everyday life") with a condition in which a person who suffers a physical disability because of brain injury..." I don't care whether it's technically a mental illness or a mental condition, it's inappropriate to claim an editor is mentally impaired for disagreeing with you, especially without evidence.

Your references to Vzaak's repeated accusations make no sense and have no bearing on your conduct here. Despite my arguments to the contrary, Vzaak got admins to determine it was "Fairly Likely" that I was linked to inappropriate IP activity; I was warned and respect the system enough to accept the admins' decision. Are you referring to that settled matter from last year, or to the failed attempts since then by Vzaak to get me blocked, which included an AE set aside due to a complete lack of evidence (sound familiar?) and another SPI accusation (this one rightfully dismissed) that claimed I was issuing death threats and committing crimes under an IP? Neither a settled case nor a slew of dismissed accusations makes your position any stronger, or your personal attacks any less offensive. The Cap'n (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Liz & Sandstein, I am of the same opinion as Liz that these back and forths are wasting the community's time and not improving behavior. I have no desire to find excuses to get editors blocked, whether they dislike me or not, but I've tried ignoring these personal attacks and they only escalate and turn into canvassing efforts to get me banned. If I don't respond then my name, reputation and record get misrepresented, I get AN's pushed against me on the basis of easily falsifiable claims and risk getting banned from WP from PA's run amok. I am all for Liz & Sandstein's suggestion of interaction bans for those involved (76, Barney, plus possibly JzG and Vzaak). I honestly have no interest in harassing these editors, and if I knew they weren't actively trying to get me banned I'd never again have to spend an admin's time on these things. As I recommended in my AR, I think IBANs would dramatically decrease hostility, frivolous accusations and timewasting. The Cap'n (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Hipocrite, the "screed" that is clearly in my name from several months back was a statement I provided to the owner of that site, of which I promptly posted notice on my Talk page for transparency (that's how most people know about it). In it I neither named or attacked any editors, but said that WP should not be about finding excuses to ban editors we disagree with. I reiterated throughout that I believed WP was better than POV hostility and would rise above this kind of squabbling. Not exactly the 95 Theses. Every one of the few other interactions I've had with that person was logged on my Talk page to demonstrate that I was not collaborating or endorsing him. After going through all that trouble to be overly transparent every step of the way, why would I then post materials on his site, not mention it, then deny involvement after the fact despite the fact it's obviously my content? Use a little logic, here. The Cap'n (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Hipocrite, do not misrepresent what I've said, please. I've never initiated a conflict or sought to ban editors for disagreeing with me, I've only asked admins to step in when editors ignore my attempts to be civil and make personal attacks, lie about me having TBANs, use profanity ("douche, dick-hole, shit-on-a-stick, troll, diehard retard," to name a few) and make homophobic slurs. Are you really defending those practices?

Also, how do you turn "I've made ONE statement to this person months ago and I was open about when and why" into "you're not denying you regularly supply content"? Either you're not listening or you're intentionally misrepresenting what I said, but either way I urge you to be more conscientious. In the same vein, I've said I had no connection to the Chopra death threat (that was before I ever edited there), Checkusers have said I had no connection to the death threat and admins have said I have no connection to the death threat. You've been informed of this on Talk pages and in this AE, so continuing Vzaak's implication that I was involved in the death threat incident is venturing into WP:ASPERSIONS. Considering how many names I've been called in the past couple days in response to asking editors to be civil, I think it's a little odd that people are claiming I'm being unreasonable. The Cap'n (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@ErikHaugen, I can take your point that questioning my competency could be relevant on an AN board, but Barney has been calling me incompetent on article talk pages, my own talk page(where I just was trying to explain that he had been editing an archive), and basically anywhere that my name comes up. He has a habit of referring to anyone who he disagrees with (ie. Liz, Littleolive oil, etc) as completely incompetent and ignorant, whether he's involved in a AE/AN or not. The Cap'n (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 76.107.171.90
• Barney the barney barney
• Littleolive oil
• Liz
• Guy

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

This is entirely frivolous complaint by Askahrc (talk · contribs) who has a history of filing such frivolous cases to the authorities.

I stand by every comment I have made about Askahrc (talk · contribs) - but not those he has now repeatedly lied about, even after being corrected.

To clarify for a second time: I do not believe that Askahrc (talk · contribs) is basically WP:COMPETENT to edit articles related to WP:FRINGE material, and in this assessment most users probably agree with me. Askahrc apparently believes he is competent, despite generally being in a minority of one. I suggest that this self-assessment is due to the Dunning–Kruger effect. This is not a mental illness. What is says is that those who are not competent to do something also tend to overestimate their competence to do that thing.

I'd also like to clarify my opinion that Askahrc (talk · contribs) is only not capable of editing WP:FRINGE-related articles. It is important to note that these articles require more competence to edit than non-controversial articles. My statement about his lack of competence is specifically with this area in which a great deal of competence is indeed required.

I'm not quite sure how Wikipedia can proceed if an assessment of a user's competence is now to be construed as a personal attack.

Ironically, given this attempt at enforcement, my opinion was intended to prevent askahrc (talk · contribs) from trying to implement what he'd regard as "mediation" between those who are sceptical of WP:FRINGE theories (in line with the WP:MAINSTREAM point of view) and those who are very much in favour of them. From my experience with Rupert Sheldrake, he'd be extremely arrogant and patronising, selectively ignore Wikipedia policy, try to impose his own views, and generally create entirely unnecessary WP:DRAMA.

In my opinion, Askahrc (talk · contribs) is basically a troll, who like others is anti-WP:FRINGE and anti-Wikipedia. WP:NOTHERE is appropriate. Vzaak (talk · contribs) has shown his attempts to use sockpuppets to troll.

I suggest that no clearer case of WP:BOOMERANG exists. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Prior discussions involving the filing party:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Askahrc/Archive
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience: "Askahrc warned"
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience: "Askahrc (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for using an IP address to harass other users and waste the community's time (see the SPI). Askahrc is warned that any attempt to harass other users, waste the community's time or edit logged out or with another account in contravention of WP:SOCK will result in an extended block. Askahrc is also restricted to using the Askahrc account only when editing pseudoscience or fringe science related topics and is banned from notifying any user of pseudoscience or fringe science discretionary sanctions. See the warning for further information."
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive147#Askahrc: "Tabled for now, with the understanding that there is a low bar for reporting newer disruption."
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive143#Barleybannocks, advocating for a user who was topic banned as a result of the discussion.

That's not bad for a user with fewer than 300 mainspace edits in over five years as a registered user.

The filing party also neglected to mention the fact that he was found using sockpuppets to attack Barney the barney barney, one of the two accounts against whom he requests sanctions. (Note: Taken on trust from prior discussions, I'm digging for diffs; false claims have also been made against Askahrc in the past).

I find this user's behaviour vexing. As Barney suggests, he is engaging himself in complex and difficult disputes around an area where he shows a clear lack of understanding (or perhaps outright rejection) of Wikipedia policy. Having been involved at the Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, Askahrc then presents himself as a neutral mediator at Deepak Chopra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chopra is a prominent supporter of Sheldrake, and vice-versa. Tim Farley analysed his editing pattern and found him to be one of a small group of people engaged in this area, whose involvement is heavily skewed towards meta-debate not content editing: . The other partisans included Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Barleybannocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Tumbleman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This seems to me to be a group of editors who have decided to Right Great Wrongs by redressing the "balance" against fringe and pseudoscientific claims, primarily related to Sheldrake, IMO.

What we do not need is editors with virtually no article editing experience, asserting themselves to be mediators in contentious biographies. The Chopra article at the moment is subject to long walls of text from a user representing the Chopra media office, now is not a good time for the well intentioned but seriously inexperienced (the most charitable interpretation, the Dunning-Kruger effect), and it's a terrible time for a troll, which is what I am afraid I think Askahrc is.

Lack of competence, lack of experience, deliberate mischief, failure to accept Wikipedia policy - whatever the problem, I think this is a user who needs ot keep away form biographies related to fringe topics, and possibly from all fringe and pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sandstein: feel free to point out what is insulting about this, I am merely pointing out the facts as I see them. This is a user who presents himself as a potential mediator, with fewer than 300 mainspace edits and a history of dispute on contentious articles. He does not understand Wikipedia well enough to understand why this is a problem, does not understand why involvement on the Sheldrake article is equivalent to involvement in the Chopra article (i.e. WP:COMPETENCE) and the sockpuppetry speaks for itself. I find his behaviour, as I say, vexing. In what way is that not a civil way of stating the issue? As I say, I am open to the possibility that this is well-intentioned, but it must be said that there is an appearance of trolling, in the classic sense of the term. This user has stated an agenda against WP:FRINGE and in favour of a more sympathetic treatment of an advocate of fringe science (and in the process a rather banned user) , now removed from the original. If that's OK by everyone then I will forget about it, no problem. What I see is someone who was marginally active for a long time then became very active in talk space just when Sheldrake started pressing for more sympathetic (and less NPOV) coverage. It sets the spidey-senses tingling. And yes, it's easy to misjudge in these cases, but it's also easy to AGF to excess. Is there a difference between a lengthy description of behaviour that may justly be represented as, at the very least, a red flag, accompanied by a very brief and clearly identified expression of personal opinion, and a blatant attack? I think there might be. Remember: we are talking about articles here that have, for a long time, seen a steady stream of newly interested and/or new users all advancing the same POV. Those of us who bother to watch them would appreciate more eyes, it would materially improve the burnout rate. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein is grossly mistaken in believing that it is a "personal attack" (and therefore prohibited) to observe that another editor is incompetent or even grossly incompetent. Some editors are indeed incompetent and cause no end of trouble at Wikipedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Although the sanctions imposed by Sandstein on 76.107.171.90 may well be covered by a liberal interpretation of the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, they are way outside the spirit of them, and should be reconsidered. It is the worst, most unjustified, admin action I have seen, in my admittedly limited experience here. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I have also been attacked by Barney, right in an arbitration request and elsewhere, but I'm not filing a complaint or adding it to this one. It is Barney's habit to treat those he doesn't respect with caustic disdain. I'm not sure if a block will change this kind of attitude.

What is more troubling is to see all of the claims and counterclaims between @76, Vzaak, The Cap'n, Barney and sometimes Guy on AN/I, AN and A/R/E. It's ridiculous for editors to look for reasons to get other editors blocked and then the second editor to file a similar complaint against the first editor another week later for harassment. I know it must be tiresome for admins to see these same parties mentioned in a complaint, in a tit-for-tat series. This needs to stop and it shouldn't be stopped by trying to get other users indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia.

It would be preferable for all editors working on topics that fall under the pseudoscience area to not "track" each other's edits and give each other a wide berth. If that is not possible because of similar interests, it is important to remember civility even when an editor questions another's competence. To repeat the fourth pillar of Wikipedia:

"Fourth pillar: Editors should treat each other with respect and civility: Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. If a conflict arises, discuss it calmly on the nearest talk pages, follow dispute resolution, and remember that there are 4,508,769 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss."

I know that every editor is aware of these words but they speak directly to the issue of respecting other editors, whether or not you agree with their position. The fourth pillar doesn't allow for exceptions for pseudoscience or Eastern Europe or Israel/Palestine, in fact, one can make a good argument that in these contentious topics, civility is even more important than in areas where there is less conflict. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Roxy, how, specifically, does a block for harassment go against "the spirit" of the policy and guidelines of Wikipedia? What makes @76's and @Barney's behavior justified? Are there specific exceptions to civility policy based on the type of articles one chooses to edit? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Hipocrite, as far as I understand it, Tumbleman lifted the content he used for that blog post (which doesn't mention any editor by name) from TheCap'n's user pages. There is also a page composed of quotes of mine, taken from discussions on talk pages, AN/I and ARBCOM, which I was neither informed of nor was my permission asked. But no one is accusing me of "collaborating" with a blocked user.

As for the SPI in November, an IP was posting discretionary sanction notices on user talk pages, an activity several of the editors commenting here have also done. The investigation concluded there was a likely a connection between the two accounts, TheCap'n was given a block admonished and the incident has not reoccurred. Six months later, I assume if there was newer evidence of sockpuppeting, there is a variety of editors who would not hesitate to share it. But suggesting that editors should be "waiting for him to make a mistake large enough (like sockpuppeting again) that you can civilly report", is not a helpful attitude to foster collaboration. And that should be the goal here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Hipocrite, all I know is that TheCap'n has shared his thoughts about the Sheldrake talk page conflict, at length, on his user pages. Truthfully, I don't know where that blog post originally came from and I think it has actually been removed from the website. I can't say anything about its creation with any certainty but as far as I'm concerned, the material discussed the unfriendly climate on Wikipedia, it didn't mention any editors by name, it's gone now and, most importantly, it's off-wiki behavior so there is no verification of its origins or authorship. If it is accepted as evidence at ARBCOM, so must every comment on Wikipediocracy or other sites like that. For the record, I would feel completely differently if there had been outing involved but the post contained nothing like that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@ErikHaugen, I think you have to consider this is not an isolated incident but part of a continuing of hostilities between editors. If it is not addressed with at least some warnings, I can guarantee that it will continue and we'll all eventually be back here at AE within a month or two. In this light, warnings and short duration blocks would hopefully be preventative. Between the cases brought to AN, AN/I and AE, I would think admins would be tired of adjudicating disputes between the same group of editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Vzaak, the SPI activity, in which there was seen a "likely" (but not confirmed) relationship between these two accounts occurred in November 2013 and was composed of posting 11 discretionary sanction notices on user talk pages. Not great, yes, but considering that many of the participants commenting here post DS notices on user talk pages, if this constitutes harassment, then there are a number of other parties guilty of this.

But, more importantly, this incident occurred six months ago, for a brief period of time and you speak as if TheCap'n is currently socking, that he caused great damage and that socking is currently a big problem. I question all of those conclusions. What I see is that there are continued attacks on TheCap'n no matter what he does, what articles that he chooses to edit and that there is a group of editors watching for any "slip-ups" he might make that can be used to bring him to AE or AN/I and get him blocked. No matter how this request is decided, I have no doubts that there will be a retaliatory case brought to an admin forum within the next few weeks even if TheCap'n makes NO questionable edits but based on these old charges (as has been done already several times). This cycle of charges and countercharges needs to stop and I'd rather it wasn't stopped with all parties receiving blocks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Barney, don't you get it? Wikipedia doesn't care if you are collaborating off wiki with a banned user to insult and harass editors here . It doesn't care if you are creating strawman sockpuppeets to try to further your side in a dispute by making your opposition look weird . It cares ONLY, and I repeat this ONLY that you do not, under any circumstances, make anyone feel even a little bad - unless, of course, you are a complete fringe lunatic - then you can make people who have spent countless hours trying to make an encyclopedia useful and accurate waste countless hours because we wouldn't dare get rid of someone who was new! Now, apologize for saying that Askahrc was generally incompetent, and proceed on with ignoring everything he says while waiting for him to make a mistake large enough (like sockpuppeting again) that you can civilly report his completely disruptive actions. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Liz, do you think he lifted the text on "Next steps: The Capn," linked via cache above from Wikipedia - because we both know he certainly did not - that was written specifically for the site by The Capn himself. "Fostering collaboration" takes everyone, not just people you disagree with doing something. How does writing screeds for tumbleman's blog foster collaboration, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Askahrc: "WP should not be about finding excuses to ban editors we disagree with." Askahrc: "Please ban these editors I disagree with." At least you're not denying you regularly supply content to Tumbleman offwiki. Are you the one who told Chopra about the vandalistic death threats? Hipocrite (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The term Dunning–Kruger effect does not refer to either a "mental impairment" or a "mental illness". Our article on this is good enough that this should be apparent to people who read the article. Cardamon (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Askahrc suggests the first SPI was somehow equivocal or not entirely solid.

• Reality: Two admins concluded that Askahrc was sockpuppeting, and Askahrc's misconduct was officially logged at WP:ARB/PS, "Askahrc is strongly admonished for using an IP address to harass other users and waste the community's time". There is nothing equivocal about this conclusion.

• Askahrc says there are "failed attempts since then by Vzaak to get me blocked".

• Reality: I have never argued that Askahrc be blocked.

• Askahrc says the AE request on him was "set aside due to a complete lack of evidence".

• Reality: Two admins took the evidence to be actionable, including the same admin who handled the SPI, with another admin remarking on Askahrc's deceptive behavior. The AE request was tabled for lack of recent activity from Askahrc, not dismissed, and with a "low bar" for subsequent activity.

• Askahrc says the second SPI was "dismissed".

• Reality: The SPI was a request for checkuser, and a checkuser was performed. This is confirmation that the evidence presented in the SPI has merit, the opposite of dismissal. A checkuser is not pixie dust. Indeed there is substantial evidence connecting Askahrc to the Abraham article, including precise location, timing, motivation, matching circumstances with his first bout of sockpuppeting, and more.

• Since the tabled request, I daresay that Askahrc has not only cleared the "low bar" but has entered the stratosphere. Despite having been sanctioned for wasting the community's time, Askahrc brought another frivolous arbitration request which was curtly dismissed by the arbitrators. The premise of the request is so bizarre that it seems like a prank: (a) if a person uses a sockpuppet to harass users, then the very act of catching this misconduct constitutes harassment of the person doing the harassing; (b) if someone uses a sockpuppet to inflame battleground sentiments, then the person who catches the sockpuppeteer is demonstrating battleground behavior.

• Since competency has been brought up here, I'll quote the penultimate point from my response to the arbitration request:

• I covered the competence issue in the ANI, the epitome of which is the MOS:LQ matter which has been pointed out to Askahrc four times. The "fixing punctuation" Askahrc mentions was not a fix but a violation of LQ. As long as Askahrc continues to interpret a simple LQ correction as battleground or ownership behavior, there is little hope of getting across more complex guidelines and policies.

• Askahrc used his arbitration request to cast evidence-free aspersions at me, which I addressed in my response at the arbitration page. He has continued this behavior at the Deepak Chopra talk page. See my response there. These aspersions alone are over the "low bar". Askahrc's sockpuppetry -- just look at what he was doing -- is contemptible, as are his ongoing baseless aspersions against the person who caught him sockpuppeting.

vzaak 00:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• (Pinging admins due to my late statement.) Sandstein, CIreland, ErikHaugen -- for more on the competence issue, see the ANI that Askahrc brought. Also please examine the tabled AE request on Askahrc, as my points here assume that as background. vzaak 01:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• If anyone is close to believing the spin Liz has attempted to put on the sockpuppeting, I invite you to study the SPI yourself (also, the word "likely" appears nowhere in that SPI). Liz is more generally trying to frame the matter as an accusation/counter-accusation cycle. No, that is a false equivalence. Askahrc is making evidence-free aspersions, and my response is to show evidence contradicting these aspersions. When I have referenced misconduct, I show evidence. The second arbitration request brought by Askahrc, the second SPI, and most recently the aspersions at the Chopra page and at AN have all occurred since the tabled "low bar" AE request. We are talking about the sockpuppeting because Askahrc talks about the sockpuppeting in the arbitration request and the Chopra page. Askahrc continues to initiate these evidence-free aspersions. I do not wish to get involved, but when I see false claims being made, I correct them. vzaak 03:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

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

As to the allegations by Barney the barney barney and JzG regarding misconduct by Askahrc, they are merely assertions without evidence, and are therefore, in my view, disruptive rather than useful.  Sandstein  12:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein's block of 76.107.171.90 (although I think it would have been justifiable as an AE action). I do not see any basis for sanctioning Guy who, whilst undoubtedly blunt, is not aggressive in his expression. Where he gives a negative opinion of Askahrc, he provides a clear rationale for that opinion and is not simply nakedly insulting. Barney the barney barney is more complex; whilst the evidence presented against him has been somewhat exaggerated (he did not suggest anyone has a mental disability) he is still very much out of line in both the mode and content of his remarks. Whether it requires a sanction to prevent recurrence, I am still undecided. I will, however, give Barney some advice: many administrators are sympathetic to editors who believe they are editing to maintain the 18 principles set down by ArbCom in WP:ARBPS but you have to recognise that the more you muddy the waters with hyperbole, aggressive expression and ad hominem remarks, the more you tie administrators' hands. CIreland (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the content of the claim – that Askahrc is not competent enough to mediate – was not necessarily inappropriate in the context in which it was made: an AN discussion about whether Askahrc was the right person to be mediating. Some of the other rhetoric was over the top, but I think it's important to remember that there are situations in which discussing the editor is not inappropriate in and of itself, and this was one of them. Similarly for JzG's statement; I don't see this as being terribly inappropriate in this context, although I'm not aware of anything (at this point) that would justify further sanctions for Askahrc. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Taking into consideration the discussion above, Barney the barney barney is banned for two months from interacting with Askahrc. While ErikHaugen's point that Askahrc's competence may have been an appropriate topic for discussion in this context is well taken, Barney the barney barney must be reminded that even in the (very rare) situations where it is appropriate to discuss another editor's personal merits (or lack thereof), this must be done without insults or personal attacks. I expect exemplary behavior from Barney the barney barney in this regard in the future.  Sandstein  07:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA#Discretionary sanctions

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

• Personal attacks and incivility:
  • ("fuck off, you trolling stalker")
  • ("as usual, pure bullshit")
  • ("troll")
  • ("trolling stalker")

• Edit-warring:
  • 9 May, 16:07
  • 9 May, 16:39
  • 9 May, 16:50 (rv-warring an obviously unreliable source back into the article, abusing Twinkle rollback, no edit-summary)
  • 11 May, 13:06 (same unreliable source again)
  • 12 May, 08:29 (another instantaneous blanket revert without edit-summary, abusing Twinkle rollback)
  • 12 May, 08:26 (instantaneous rv without edit summary or discussion, baseless accusation of "stalking")
  • 12 May, 11:43 (yet another instantaneous blanket rv, again abusing Twinkle rollback.)

• Forum-shopping and refusal to get the point at WP:RSN: filing case without acknowledging or even mentioning prior discussion, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT insistence on re-introducing obviously unsuitable source

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• Has had 18(!) prior blocks between January 2012 and December 2013, all for personal attacks and/or edit-warring
• Last AE thread about India-Pakistan topics resulted in a "final warning" against any further "edit warring or other inappropriate interaction" . *Current revert-limitation in another discretionary-sanction topic area .

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Apparently, Darkness Shines has somehow got the idea into his mind that he can make "his" articles immune from criticism and scrutiny from me, by simply defining any edit I make to them as "stalking". He has even gone so far as to shop admins to demand an "interaction ban" for me .

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

On 28 July 2012 I asked FPAS to stop hounding me, he refused to. Calling a self admitted stalker a stalker is not a PA, it is a cold hard fact. FPAS also seems to forget it takes two to edit war, he was removing reliably cited content from the Davis article which I restored. The accusation of forum shopping is a joke, when an editor says a source is unreliable then it goes to the RSN board, that is normal practice. Saying fuck off is not against any policy I know of, wikipedia is not censored. I requested an IBAN before at AN, and I request an IBAN now, all FPAS ever does is leave snarky edit summaries directed at me. This has been going on for years and this filing is just another aspect of harassment and the battlefield approach to editing that FPAS has towards any editor he falls out with. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein: Are you fucking dense? FPAS has already continued the edit war, 5 reverts, just outside the 24 hr mark, but sure fuck me over, after all, he is one of yours. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hipocrite: You forget, it is OK for an admin to tell people to fuck off, for a peon like mo, that is verboten. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I have seen many examples of the same and worse behaviour.

Personal Attacks:

• Says editor "is being a cunt"
• Calls an admin "fucking dense" and a "tit" only because the admin closed an AFD as "keep" when DS wanted "delete".

DS later apologized after being criticized, however, an editor who is reporting other editors (who have also apologized) for alleged personal attacks for sanctions should know better. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"FUCK OFF" is not incivil, per precedent. Anyone who blocks users for telling others to FUCK OFF need to review the following: , and take appropriate action. Hipocrite (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

How many times do I need to note users telling other users to fuck off such that it's jurisprudence? That was just the first example I found. I've never mentioned it before, to my knowledge. Hipocrite (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

What can I say. DS has a habit of making stupid statements, and their comment to me was followed by a totally half-assed sort of semi-apology, so the next time they wanted my help I didn't help. I would not make an Arb case out of it, and I'm not going to call for a block over something they said to me. DS will get blocked for it again, and then unblocked, and we'll keep on doing the civility dance. Now, the misrepresentation of sources, that's a serious matter, but again, I fail to see how ArbCom should rule over that: are we incapable of handling it? Drmies (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Hipocrite: that was three years ago. It's hardly jurisprudence, and no one would block someone over something from three years ago. Can you drop that stick, please? I respect you, but this is disruptive, to use adminspeak. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a case of it taking two to tango, so please examine the behavior of both primary parties in this dispute with an objective mind. Full disclosure, I have interacted with Future Perfect at Sunrise in the past, and it was one of the most unpleasant experiences I've had in my eight years of editing Wikipedia, and I've had a lot of unpleasant experiences, FWIW. Cla68 (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

DS does need to curb his tendency to cuss when angry and there is no question about that. Needle him long enough and he will break. FPAS, who I very much doubt is tossing and turning in bed muttering "why doesn't he like me" and "he told me to f-off", knows that very well and he has done an excellent job of exploiting that weakness. In an objective world, someone would tell FPAS to lay off DS and we could all get on with the business of editing. Blocking productive content editors doesn't seem like a good way to build an encyclopedia. --regentspark (comment) 16:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

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

The request is justified. The evidence submitted shows that Darkness Shines has engaged in edit-warring and personal attacks, and has abused the rollback facility. The complaint also highlights Darkness Shines's stupendously long list of blocks and their relatively recent warning by an administrator on this noticeboard.

It is also significant that the statement by Darkness Shines shows no understanding of how problematic their editing is. By replying "Saying fuck off is not against any policy I know of, wikipedia is not censored", they confuse the policy WP:CENSORED, which governs article content, with the policy WP:NPA, which governs conduct among editors, and does in fact prohibit personal attacks such as the ones at issue here. Such errors are of high concern in an editor with 25925 edits and that long a list of blocks for misconduct, and indicate to me that little short of an indefinite block may prevent further misconduct of this sort by Darkness Shines.

What's more, Darkness Shines has not only edit-warred, but has done so to add text that misrepresents the cited source. In the edit and subsequent reverts, Darkness Shines introduces the text "the commonly cited figure of 200,000 " to replace the text "commonly cited figures", which is attributed to Dr. Geoffrey Davis quoted in the source "D'Costa 2010a" The earlier text correctly represents Dr. Davis's statement in the source, but the number of 200,000, which Darkness Shines has edit-warred to add, is not found in the cited source.

In my view, this makes clear that Darkness Shines cannot be relied upon to edit contentious and sensitive topics responsibly, and that a topic ban (at the least) is indicated, as well as removal of the rollback permission. I invite comments by others as to what the scope of that topic ban should be, and why. Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to determine whether, as the complainant alleges, that a source used by Darkness Shines is obviously unreliable, or whether Darkness Shines has engaged in other misconduct.

We must however also consider that the complainant, Future Perfect at Sunrise, has been the other party in these edit wars, and that as an administrator they should know even better that edit-warring is not permitted. I would appreciate comments by others as to which, if any, sanction is indicated with regard to Future Perfect at Sunrise.  Sandstein  18:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• If a content matter is under long-term dispute it is understandable that Future Perfect would take a continuing interest; that should not be described as 'stalking'. It is hard to see that DS is following a path of patient discussion that will lead to a negotiated solution on this. The disagreement has been going on since 2012. On the whole, nobody seems to have found a good response to FP's claim that Davis did not use the number 200,000 in the interview reported by D'Costa in 2010. (Her article on the interview does not contain the number 200,000). At first glance it seems like a minor rewording would avoid the possibility of any WP:SYNTH; it seems that DS is not open to this. (The editors might agree to cite the 200,000 figure to another source, and then report Davis's view in a different sentence). Sandstein gives a good summary of the problem. It shows poor judgment on the part of DS to give us such a vivid example of battleground editing in his response to this complaint. Since a previous AE warned Darkness Shines that his future behavior would be closely watched, I think this takes it over the line. I do not yet see the case for an indefinite block, but think that other possibilities should be considered, including a topic ban and removal of rollback. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think the two summaries above are indicative of a problem which does need to be dealt with, especially given the prior warning, edit warring, battleground behaviour and personal attacks and Darkness Shines's comment that "Saying fuck off is not against any policy I know of" indicating that they don't understand a core conduct requirement.

After reading the request, the evidence presented with it as well as some other contribs and prior warnings/discussions after blocks my opinion is that a block (of at least two months) would be in order as well as topic ban. The reason I suggest a block is that the discretionary sanctions remedy requires us "to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment", I believe that Darkness Shines continuing to edit war, make personal attacks, and not understand that they can't say fuck off requires us to remove them from the general editing environment so that they develop a deeper understanding of policies and guidelines - primarily WP:Edit warring (see complaint) and WP:No personal attacks (see complaint and the quote I mentioned above).

Regarding the suggested removal of the rollback userright, I can't see where Darkness Shines has abused the WP:Rollback function (as separate from the WP:Twinkle rollback function), Sandstein have I missed something? The only uses I could find of WP:Rollback were either appropriate or accidental and subsequently self-reverted. In any case, if rollback is removed I think it would be better to remove it as a normal admin action rather than as a discretionary sanction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right, the rollback was done with the user script Twinkle instead of with the standard rollback functionality, but that doesn't make it any more appropriate. It's an argument for removing Twinkle access too, though. Any opinions on Future Perfect at Sunrise's conduct? Considering that their history of past sanctions appears far less troublesome, I suggest that we should log a warning against edit-warring to Future Perfect at Sunrise only, and impose a block, rollback/Twinkle access removal and topic ban on Darkness Shines.  Sandstein  21:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that removing the rollback userright or that directing Darkness Shines not to Twinkle would be appropriate. Instead I think a warning that they should always explain reverts except when the revert is for an obvious reason and would be a minor edit (obvious vandalism, BLP violations and so on). I have implemented a two month block on Darkness Shines due to this comment which flies in the face of what we are discussing and shows that they do not understand what is acceptable and what is not. This doesn't preclude further sanctions (such as the topic ban) only that the behaviour is unacceptable and Darkness Shines needs to be removed from the editing environment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Future Perfect at Sunrise I'll have a deeper look into their conduct in this topic area later on when I have some more time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

So far we have a TBAN from WP:ARBIPA related pages as well as the already imposed block for Darkness Shines. I'm still not convinced that we should remove rollback or direct the removal of Twinkle as I don't believe there is enough evidence to establish a pattern of misuse (compared with appropriate use of which there is a pattern) outside this one edit war. We also have a logged warning for edit warring for Future Perfect at Sunrise. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. The other sanctions will hopefully make the rollback issue moot.  Sandstein  10:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Discretionary_sanctions :

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

1. 1 May 2014 Scalhotrod removed link to Assault weapons ban (AWB) article from See also section of Gun politics in the United States (GPUS) article, claiming it was already linked in the article (it was not)
2. 2 May 2014 Scal removed link again, giving no reason for removal (the removal was among other edits - scroll down)
3. 5 May 2014 Scal removed link a third time, claiming again that it was already in the article (it was not; this is also when Gaijin42 gave Scal advice about "See also" material)
4. 5 May 2014 Scal moved/renamed Assault weapons ban article to Assault weapons legislation (and he declared his problem resolved )

Together, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS 1 and 4.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. 6 May 2014

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Actually, I do not want to block Scal. I just want to reverse that final (fourth) edit he made that moved "Assault weapons ban" to "Assault weapons legislation."

I will admit right up front that I botched my responses to his edits. I have never participated in an ArbCom before. If I had, and knew how discretionary sanctions worked, I would have alerted him about them (DS). Instead, I started an RfC. However, after starting the RfC, I discovered the requested move process, which seemed like a much more appropriate process under the circumstances. So I started an RM and asked to have the RfC closed - and it was.

Then I waited for the RM to be processed. After 7 days, it rolled into the backlog, and I asked uninvolved admin Drmies to close it. His detailed response is here, and I truly appreciate the time he put into it, although I am disappointed in his decision. After discussing it on his page, from his advice and that of another editor who commented there, Dralwik, I decided that a move review was probably not the way to go. But one thing kept jumping out at me from that discussion. Drmies wrote, "what you're really trying to get done is the reversal of that original move." And that's true.

Again, I don't want Scal blocked. He and I have kinda made peace. But I do want the article title restored to its original, WP:TITLE. There was no clear consensus to move/rename it (one vote, if you simply count votes), and its current title is WP:POVNAMING.

The last message I got on my talk page was from Robert McClenon, saying I should use this forum for complaints about gun-related articles (rather than AN or ANI). Scal has received his DS warning, as have I. (Callanec warned us both at the same time... over this very dust-up.) Is there a way we can agree here to restore the original article title, shake hands, and both of us move forward humbled, as we should be?

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Scalhotrod notified 16 May 2014 here:

NOTE:

For the discussion about edits re the move/rename in Scal's "NOTE" below, see

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

NOTE:

Quite literally while I was in the middle of drafting this the OP, Lightbreather, moved the article to Assault weapons bans in the United States from Assault weapons legislation. I discovered this when I trying to reference the Talk page. I followed on by moving it to Assault weapons legislation in the United States which was reverted and I moved again.

Statement

I'd like to start by mentioning that there was considerable confusion over the use of the phrase "Assault Weapon(s) Ban" (both singular and plural). I spent a fair amount of time locating many of the instances of this phrase and found that it was being to used to refer to a variety of things, but was Wikilinked incorrectly. The most common error being the intention of a link to the 1994 U.S. Federal Assault Weapons Ban and it linked back to the article title Assault Weapons Ban which is a collection (defacto List article) of legislation (multiple laws, not just one). In several related articles where I have seen the term "ban" used, sometimes more than once in sentence and in consecutive sentences, I have changed it to "prohibit" (or some other synonym) or explained it better detail such as "prohibited from owning or purchasing assault weapons" versus "bans assault weapons". The latter being a phrase that left me more confused than informed.

In my opinion, the article title "Assault Weapon Legislation" is correct:

• The word "ban" is not universally understood, its meaning is contextually based, and is somewhat vague. For example, in California pet stores are legally "banned" from selling live turtles that are under 4 inches in size, but its not illegal to possess one like it is with an unregistered "assault weapon". Even when alcohol was "banned" in the U.S. by the 8th Amendment, it's still referred to as Prohibition, not "The Banning".
• "Legislation" in the title indicates fairly succinctly that the article is about "laws concerning assault weapons" regardless of where which state/city, how they are defined, or whether the bill was successful in becoming a law.
• I considered myself fairly knowledgeable on the subject and even I am confused by the use of the term "ban" here on WP with regard to this subject. More often than not when I see it used I ask how or why, but fail to find that information.
• It's been mentioned that the preponderance of Google and search engine results use the phrase "assault weapons ban" and those searches will still bring a Reader to this article, the redirect alone accomplishes that. But isn't the purpose of the article to explain and/or clarify the term, not just repeat it ad nauseam?
• Furthermore, the phrase "Assault Weapons Legislation" is Neutral and non-POV.

I would also like to offer the following observations made by other editors in the RfC and the Move Request:

• It's likely more appropriate to change the title to Assault Weapons Legislation in the United States, since... (moot, already done)
• "Assault weapon" is primarily an American term
• The topic (and content) is plural, Assault Weapons Ban is singular.
• we must strive for accuracy and neutrality.

The closing Admin, Drmies mentions this in their summary citing User Celestra as the key element, "The current article is about multiple bans and the proposed title is singular, misleading..." and then declares the attempts to rename the article as Reductio ad absurdum.

Policy states:

• WP:TITLE The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic.

Thank you, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

My close of that RM is here--for the record, my reference to reductio ad absurdum applies not to the request as a whole or even the nominator's rationale, but to one specific argument brought up by one single editor. More importantly, Sandstein is correct, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected, my apologies for the misinterpretation. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• No problem at all, cowboy; thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

(By the way, is gun control under 1RR, or just discretionary sanctions. If the former, both the subject of this request and I are in violation.)

I do see an (indirect) request for ArbCom action; a specific finding that Scalhotrod's actions are in violation of the Gun control decision, even if no block is requested. He/she restored the following clear WP:SYNTHESIS violation, with no indication that many agree that it is relevant or that any agree that it is not synthesis, at Gun politics in the United States; namely . — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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

The complaint is framed explicitly not as a request for administrative action, but as a proposal for the resolution of the underlying content dispute. You're in the wrong forum for that, sorry. Arbitration enforcement is not part of the dispute resolution process (WP:DR). You should follow that process in order to arrive at a resolution of the content dispute, but you can't do that here. Without objection, I'll close this as not actionable.  Sandstein  14:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin: To answer your question, gun control as a whole is not under 1RR automatically. An uninvolved administrator could apply a 1RR restriction to an article or editor if needed as a discretionary sanction, but it's not that way by default. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics#SPECIFICO_topic-banned :

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

1. May 12 Stephan Molyneux is a person broadly associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. A quote from the editor of Mises.org is in the lead paragraph, the subjects books have been discussed on the site many times, and he appears on the Mises Wiki.
2. May 9 SPECIFICO made several edits to the same article a couple days ago, and was informed on May 9 that the subject of this article falls within his topic ban.
3. May 10 Edited Bryan Caplan, a person who is broadly associated with LvMI as noted in this message to SPECIFICO warning him of the subjects connection by User:Srich32977.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Explanation
2. Explanation

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Based on a quick look at other aspects of his editing activity and talk page conversations, I feel like this editor might be becoming hostile with regards to articles right on the fringe of his topic ban, almost as if he is testing to see where the electric fence is rather than making an effort to broaden his editing activities to other areas. -- Netoholic @ 05:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess I need to add some additional clarification onto the initial request, since it sounds like we have very different understandings of what "associated with" means. Molyneux has interacted quite frequently with members of the Mises Institute staff, and so I would qualify that as "associated with" the Mises Institute. SPECIFIC was topic-banned in order to prevent him from editing about the LvMI and its staff because he's shown a significant bias *against* them, and so now what he's doing is editing articles of people who are connected with the staff, in order to try and show them a negative light. Some prominent interactions between Molyneux and Mises staff: interviewed by Redmond Weisenberger of Mises Canada, interview with Senior Fellow Walter block, several interviews with Jeffrey Tucker, recently left as editor of mises.org, interviews with Senior Fellow Tom Woods, interaction with Senior Fellow David Gordon, and much more which I can provide if needed. So what does " topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it" mean if it doesn't apply to a person that associates with senior leadership of the Institute? -- Netoholic @ 06:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User was notified. --Netoholic @ 05:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

I really have nothing to add concerning the Molyneux allegation. I'm puzzled however. Here we are at an Arbcom page and in her section below, @Carolmooredc: issues yet another of the unsupported and false personal attacks that got her banned -- "So he can continue the biased editing of bios..." Is that OK? At the very least it seems wildly disrespectful of Arbcom and wasteful of its time and attention. If this were a court of law, Carolmooredc would be cited for contempt. Why is this behavior tolerated on WP. How many editors just get sick and tired of it and leave the Project? SPECIFICO talk 13:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I will let Specifico post the diffs regarding an earlier notification and its' resolution. IMO the article on Molyneux is not a Mises.org-related topic. What others may have posted about Molyneux on the Mises.org website is their business, but having done so does not make Molyneuz a Mises.org related person. (Please note that I have absolutely no affection or alliance with Specifico. I posted evidence against him during the Arbcom. And I posted the notice to him about Caplan as a Mises.org related person) -– S. Rich (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)05:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: It is not a big deal, but Caplan is associated with Mises.org. See: . He published in the Mises.org journal Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. (This is the opposite of them posting some of his stuff, he submitted it for publication.) I don't disagree with the edit that Specifico did (following my lead in removing "influenced" names from the infobox), but TBANs include the good edits, the bad edits, and the ugly edits. So, bottom line, the Molyneux edits do not violate the TBAN and Specifico has been properly notified re Caplan. – S. Rich (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Given the two admin comments below, it's water under the dam or over the bridge by now. But I do see where Caplan did an original posting at Writing on the Wall. This is more than a passive involvement with Mises.org. Again, no big deal. I posted the notice re Caplan and I certainly did not want it to become part of a very weak case for arbcom enforcement. I seriously doubt that Specifico's name will show up here again. – S. Rich (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Regarding the comment a few days ago, I can agree that many people who have had their works published by Mises.org would not come within the TBAN. After all, they number in the hundreds, if not thousands. But part of the overall and broader Austrian Economics/Mises.org problem arose because editors sought to conflate "associations" with Mises.org to criticisms of Mises.org via other sources that were critical of the persons. (Paraphrasing no one in particular (and w/o cites/diffs) we saw "scholars who have published with or are associated with Mises.org did these bad things....") For this reason, I think the TBAN should be broadly construed. I'm all for closing this action (and I defended Specifico from the get-go), but I worry that the distinction you raise allows "the camel to put the nose under the tent". – S. Rich (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

PS: In followup to my last comment, Mises.org List has 6,314 articles. Here is a list of their authors: . Picking one at random, I see one author who is quite enthusiastic about Mises.org. I don't think this forum is appropriate to re-litigate the problems associated with Mises.org (many of which dealt with a now-indef'd editor), nor do I want it to become the basis for narrowing the scope of the TBAN. – S. Rich (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that at least Bryan Caplan is NOT associated with the von Mises Institute (in a way this sort of clinches it). They just put up some of his writings on their website. The only link of the Bryan Caplan article to vMI is a single External Link. The edit by SPECIFICO in question also falls under WP:BLP and was a good edit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not as familiar with this Stephan Molyneux fellah but the link there to vMI also appears pretty weak. So they wrote about him in their Wiki. So what?

More generally, it should be kept in mind that the topic ban is in regard to the von Mises Institute and not from Economics in general, or even Liberterianism or even Austrian economics in general. Of course by a sort of six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon any economist can be "linked" to vMI through a few steps. But I note that the topic ban remedy explicitly *excludes* Austrian economics.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@S.Rich - I don't think publishing in QJAE is sufficient to consider somebody as "associated" with vMI. Note also that the Caplan article you link to, as well as his other QJAE article "Probability, Common Sense, and Realism: A Reply to Hülsmann and Block" were replies to other articles. The original article which seemed to start this intellectual conversation was "The Austrian Search for Realistic Foundations" which was published in the Southern Economic Journal which has no affiliation with vMI. What happened here (I'm pretty, though not 100% sure) is that Caplan published an article on Austrian economics somewhere else, a couple vMI folks wrote about it in QJAE and then QJAE gave Caplan a chance to respond, as is often done in such cases.

Basically, no association with vMI.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

And this: but Caplan is associated with Mises.org. See: - that just shows that they wrote him up on their Wiki, same as Molyneux.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ummm... isn't Carolmooredc's statement below a violation of their topic ban (the and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased part)? Does it need a separate AE report? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Ed's suggestion below, which makes the topic ban more precise is a very good one. If SPECIFICO violates the precise version of the topic ban, there'll be little wiggle room for Wikilawyering or controversy and sanctions can be imposed with little drama. At the same time, additional information as to what the topic ban actually covers can help the editor avoid violating the topic ban on accident or in some trivial manner.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I've already been counseled privately that I should not play games with my topic ban by quoting Murray Rothbard or other Austrian economists on purely political topics in overwhelming political articles. Therefore I have to wonder about SPECIFICO's topic ban being narrowly construed to what he continues to assert it is: "official members" of the Mises.org/faculty as listed there. So he can continue the biased editing of bios of those who aren't on that list? Biased editing got him the topic ban, remember.
For example, at this edit SPECIFICO removed info about Peter Schiff who is not a faculty member but a search of Mises.org shows he does events for them, writes for them and is promoted by some of their other writers. SPECIFICO worked a lot on the Schiff article in the past so he should know that. Moreover, his edits already are starting conflicts over BLPs, which is why this Austrian Economics Arbitration happened in the first place. If I am to be broadly construed because I lost my temper with biased editing that Admins refused to deal with despite numerous complaints from several editors, I'd like to see others' topic bans also broadly construed so they do not continue biased editing which causes conflicts. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Carols block seems awfully harsh and inappropriate. She was discussing the topic ban and how it was applied, not the topic directly. This seems to clearly fall under the "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum" bit of the banning policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

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

The persons at issue have, according to the complaint, all been mentioned or covered by this institute repeatedly, and one of them has published in a journal published by the institute. I don't quite see, yet, how this adds up to them being associated with the institute, even broadly construed. As such, I don't yet see how these edits are wirhin the scope of the topic ban.  Sandstein  05:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Sandstein on this one, I don't see that any of the diffs presented breach the topic ban and I don't see misconduct which would warrant extending the sanction as mentioned in the final decision. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Considering the additional statements above, it's still not clear to me that these persons should be considered "associated with" the institute in the sense of the remedy at issue. That would certainly be the case for an institutional or permanent relationship of some sort, such as employment or regular contract work. But I know too little about the intricacies of the relationships among these academics to be able to say with the certainty required for sanctions that this constitutes a violation of the topic ban, even though we may well have a fringe case here. If editors believe that we are construing the topic ban too narrowly, they may ask the Committee to clarify its scope via WP:ARCA.  Sandstein  08:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• As Volunteer Marek correctly points out, the statement by Carolmooredc above violates Carolmooredc's topic ban from "pages relating to the Austrian school of economics ... or persons associated with them", because the people mentioned in this request are described in their articles as economists from the Austrian school of economics. The statement by Carolmooredc is also not a necessary participation in a dispute resolution proceeding because the conduct of Carolmooredc was not previously at issue here. I note also that, as SPECIFICO points out, Carolmooredc's statement contains unsupported allegations of misconduct against others, which is disruptive. In enforcement of the topic ban, I am blocking Carolmooredc for two weeks.  Sandstein  15:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Specifico's ban phrasing is "topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it, either living or deceased..." (plus other words that allow editing on Austrian economics generally). It would be silly to ban Specifico from writing about anyone that a Mises publication ever wrote an article on. I agree that Carolmooredc's post in this AE violated her ban. Bryan Caplan used the Mises Daily once in 2010 as a publication venue for one of his articles. This does not make him their associate. Still less does a publication in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics create that association. To create a usable boundary for the sanction, it might be better to let 'a person associated with the Mises Institute' be defined as 'a person listed on the Mises website as one of the senior fellows, faculty members, or staff.' EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• It looks as though no admin who commented thinks Specifico should be sanctioned for his edits to Bryan Kaplan or Stefan Molyneux. Unless there are further comments I suggest this be closed in the next 24 hours with no action. Whether Carol's behavior needs a sanction is being considered in her appeal below. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Appealing user

User:Carolmooredc 14:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

• Sandstein has been notified here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• On April 15 at the Arbitration Proposed Decision talk page I asked at this diff about other editors subject to the ban: "will we topic banned editors be allowed to warn them on talk pages and/or complain at Arbitration enforcement about such violations?" I got no response.
• On April 22 at the same page I tried again, and I asked at this diff "And can I complain about SPECIFICO's edits at Arbitration enforcement?" referring to edits during the last day or so of the Arbitration.
• @Beeblebrox: replied: "There is no merit to complaining at AE as the case is not quite closed yet, although if your accusations are true it certainly doesn't reflect well on that user." He did not say topic banned editors have no right to complain about another sanctioned editor at Arbitration enforcement or that I could not complain about future edits once the Arbitration went into effect. I believe other Arbitrators also may believe topic banned editors can complain there. @Floquenbeam:
• In that context, I don't believe my comments related to the reasons SPECIFICO was banned or to his editing on specific articles of individuals who may or may not be within the parameters of the ban should be considered a violation of the Arbitration. I certainly tried to find out what the policy was, thought I had found out what it was, and had no intention of violating it.

I recommend that this appeal is declined for the reasons explained by EdJohnston below. Topic-banned editors are given individual notice about the specifics of their ban, any further warning is therefore not necessary.  Sandstein  20:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Following discussion on my talk page indicating that Carolmooredc may have been given misleading advice about what she could do, I have unblocked her and warned her that participating in discussions regarding the conduct of others in the topic area is a violation of the topic ban.  Sandstein  21:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Carol's statement "I've already been counseled privately that I should not play games with my topic ban by quoting ...." is telling. In making the statement, she wikilinks Rothbard and externalinks Mises.org who/which come within her topic ban. She added these links to a discussion which was trending to an exoneration of Specifico. So, speaking up was dumb and linking the topics was even dumber. Still, a two week block is harsh. I would give her a one-week reprieve. If she violates the ban with other edits (dumb or not), then the next sanction gets to be all the harsher. (I was involved in the Specifico discussion above, arguing that his edits to Molyneux did not violate his TBAN.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated personal attacks such as Carolmooredc's cited in this block are corrosive and damaging to WP. Such behavior damages Wikipedia. Other editors end up abandoning individual articles, topics, or the entire Project. There is nothing legitimate about such behavior anywhere on WP and every editor deserves to participate with confidence in the knowledge that Arbcom will not tolerate it. Blocked editors routinely file appeals and this one, like many, appears to be based on denial of the behavior which led to the block. A two week block is hardly a death sentence. It's simply a firm demonstration that this behavior will not be tolerated -- a form of warning for the future. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Please have a close look at Carolmooredc's text in this appeal and see whether you think she's accurately and fully representing what occurred. In my opinion she is continuing a long-established pattern of misrepresentation and unsubstantiated allegation. That's not mere sniping. It's going to consume an significant and undue amount of Arbcom time and attention to verify and sort out the claims and rationalizations on which she bases this appeal. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Future's comment below. "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum" - her concern seems legitimate (alleged disparate enforcement of bans), and if that isn't the correct forum I don't know what would be. It certainly isn't a blatant or egregious violation. If it crossed the line she should have been told so, via a warning. An instant block is significant overkill. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• There is an assumption among those more experienced that everybody knows how AE and arbitration works. This isn't true. I've asked arbs for help who weren't sure about aspects of arbitration. An editor who doesn't know she is in violation and acts in good faith should not be sanctioned; a sanction under those conditions is punitive. What is to be gained by punitive actions in a supposedly collaborative community? Giving her information first, and then a warning is more helpful to her and to the rest of the community seems to me.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC))

• There is a distinct difference between, the editor has been warned, and the editor did not understand. The editor has been warned and understands but still violates the ban is not the same as the editor has been warned but failed to understand. Wikipedia is not punitive. Punishment is not particularly enlightened or productive, and no editor should see themselves in a position to punish, in my opinion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC))

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

• Personally, I find this block to be an over-reaction. While Sandstein is right that the edit was, strictly speaking, a breach of the letter of the rule, it was also still in the gray area where Carolmooredc could well have thought, in good faith, that she was asking a legitimate process-related question. In such cases, a simple, appropriate and non-drama-producing solution would have been to simply remove her posting with a brief warning. An instant block like this, while arguably formally covered by the rules, is unproductive and punitive. This is not how arb sanctions ought to be enforced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure where "not really involved but maybe some might consider it a tiny bit involved Arb comments" go.

  Two things:

1. Confirming what she implies above: I told Carolmooredc via email that she could report violations at AE; it's not unreasonable for her to have assumed she could comment here too. Indeed, I'm not convinced that her post was a breach of the letter or spirit of the topic ban. It was, however, a continuation of the sniping that has been epidemic in this topic area, of which I assume we have all had more than enough.
2. I think an unblock is called for. However, I also suggest someone truly uninvolved decide whether a final warning about continuing disputes well past their expiration date is in order.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Per WP:BANEX, if a person is under a topic ban they should not be commenting on complaints about others working in the same topic area. This applies to both the original edits by Carolmooredc that are being discussed here, and the new comments by Specifico during this appeal. Arbcom could perhaps use more precise language when issuing topic bans so people are not confused. The only time a banned person should be here at AE is if they are making a good-faith appeal of their own sanction, or asking for it to be clarified. They could also validly complain about the other person if they are under an IBAN. That does not apply here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not clear on what you mean, exactly. Are you saying that 1) the block is justified for Carolmooredc's comments, and 2) SPECIFICO's comments just above have now earned them the same block?--v/r - TP 17:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Carolmooredc should not have been posting at AE about another editor's possible violation of the same ban, though I'm not sure if a two-week block was needed. Mere understanding might be sufficient. The phrase 'other pages' in the ban wording covers AE, in fact, it covers every page on Wikipedia where something related to the Mises Institute might be discussed. People newly-banned are often unclear on the terms. Specifico should not have been posting here about Carolmooredc's ban appeal and has put themselves in the same pickle. Both violations might be closed with no action if we are sure the person understands the terms. Take it to WP:ARCA if you don't think Arbcom intended that. An endless series of AE complaints by banned people about each other is not desirable. This fails to achieve the desired tranquility in the topic area. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Because what earned Carolmooredc the block was due to the request above, I consider this appeal an extension of the request and thus do not think SPECIFICO should be blocked based on it (since it's clear that SPECIFICO was already involved in this situation). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Ready to close? Per his comment above, and per discussions at User talk:Sandstein and User talk:Carolmooredc, Sandstein has lifted his block. Are people OK with closing this now, with the block lifted but with Sandstein's warning to Carol kept as it is? The ultimate authority for the meaning of the committee's bans is the committee itself, though AE has in the past been quite narrow in interpreting them. Until we are told otherwise, I believe that the narrow interpretation is the best use of time. The topic area will benefit from the absence of the people who are now restricted. They are still free to contribute to other topics but should not be commenting about one another at admin boards. The only exception should be for valid requests for clarifying your own ban or for valid appeals. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No further comments have come in. Some admins favored lifting the block and that has now been done, voluntarily by Sandstein. I'm not seeing a consensus to undo the warning to Carol, so if Carol was appealing the warning, that part is not successful. The words that Sandstein added to the case log are here. Whether anything should be done about SPECIFICO is not germane to Carol's appeal, so I'm leaving that unaddressed. SPECIFICO may have seen this appeal as a continuation of the previous complaint about him at AE and if so his response was appropriate. People have a right to defend themselves if their conduct is criticized in someone else's report. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

1. editing topic banned article related to the tea party broadly construed.
2. editing topic banned article related to the tea party broadly construed.

indef topic ban, widely construed relating to the tea party.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Perhaps the user is sincerely unaware that the 2013 IRS Scandal could be consider to be related to the tea party movement, if this is the case, a warning would suffice maybe. there is a possibility of the old edit warring behavior reappearing as the user appears to be involved in a article naming dispute submited barely a month after the previous move attempt failed. the user might also be engaging in battleground short off topic comments like, amusing as usual.

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

The article was on my watchlist, because I had commented on the talk page prior to my topic ban. I looked at and responded to the talk page debate on moving/renaming the article. Because I didn't look at the article main page, I didn't notice that the Tea Party was a topic of the article (I had thought that it was just conservative groups who were alleged to have been targeted, although I didn't think about it clearly). I have removed the article from my watchlist and will not comment there again. — goethean 15:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st now appears to be using his talk page to taunt me? — goethean 21:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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

In view of the statement by Goethean, I think that this can be closed without action.  Sandstein  16:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, agree. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Since User:Goethean has admitted he made a mistake, I agree this could be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

67.164.188.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Lugia2453 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

In the Sandy Hook Conspirarcy theory article her and another user keep removing a request to review the article for deletion even though I have made my request conform to the guidelines on the deletion standards page. I believe the request is valid and she is preventing the request from generating a discussion as would be proper by removing the tagging. She is not an administrator and should not remove tags without permission of an admin or moderator.

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION :

http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting_conspiracy_theories

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

(cur | prev) 15:55, 26 May 2014‎ McSly (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,531 bytes) (-272)‎ . . (Undid revision 610220748 by 67.164.188.243 (talk) the protocol is to take the article to AFD) (undo) (cur | prev) 15:49, 26 May 2014‎ 67.164.188.243 (talk)‎ . . (23,803 bytes) (+272)‎ . . (Undid revision 610220588 by Lugia2453 (talk) you can't revoke this tagging simply becuase you don't like it, once the article has been tagged you must follow the protocol of discussion.) (undo) (cur | prev) 15:48, 26 May 2014‎ Lugia2453 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,531 bytes) (-272)‎ . . (Undid revision 610219607 by 67.164.188.243 (talk) No, you've been told why your tagging is inappropriate on your talk page) (undo) (cur | prev) 15:40, 26 May 2014‎ 67.164.188.243 (talk)‎ . . (23,803 bytes) (+272)‎ . . (undo) (cur | prev) 15:33, 26 May 2014‎ Acroterion (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,531 bytes) (-149)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 67.164.188.243 (talk): Rv inappropriate tagging. (TW)) (undo) (cur | prev) 15:33, 26 May 2014‎ 67.164.188.243 (talk)‎ . . (23,680 bytes) (+149)‎ . . (Undid revision 610218533 by Lugia2453 (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 15:31, 26 May 2014‎ Lugia2453 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,531 bytes) (-149)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by 67.164.188.243 (talk): Not a reason for speedy deletion. Even if does go through AFD, it'll likely end up being kept anyway. (TW)) (undo)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
• Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am tagging this article again for AFD.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Complainant blocked for disruptive editing, abuse of speedy deletion tags, edit-warring and for this bad-faith and inappropriate report. Acroterion (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

And talkpage access revoked as well. Acroterion (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

We can't process the request, at any rate, in this messed-up and incomplete form. I'm closing the request. It can be resubmitted, if needed, in proper form if it represents a genuine concern held in good faith.  Sandstein  16:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions

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

• on United Regions of Serbia: long-term slow rv-warring against multiple editors
  • 2 April
  • 4 April
  • 7 April
  • 10 April
  • 11 April
  • 16 April
  • 17 April
  • 22 April
  • 24 April
  • 16 May
• on 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence
  • 16 May, tag-team reverting in concert with rv-war-only account , making personal attacks against opposing editors
  • 17 May, same rv, no edit summary
  • 18 May, continued slow rv-warring just at 1/day
  • 19 May
• on Geography of Kosovo:
  • 26 May, expressing sense of "ownership" by claiming other editors need "authorization" to edit
  • immediate re-revert without discussion

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

was blocked in 2011 for edit-warring and misuse of "vandalism" accusations on similar Serbia-related topics

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Warned today, prior to latest rv

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor evidently has a long-term pattern of routinely using edit-warring as their primary response to content disagreement. Before 2011, he even had a note describing his role on Wikipedia as "protects and monitors any and all pages concerning Serbia and Serbs from vandalism".

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Looks like I'm a little late to my own party. I think users: NE Ent and No Such User made compelling enough reasoning not to enforce D/S (my thanks to you both). Beyond that I'll add that I believe the nominating admin jumped the gun in targeting me exclusively when both users...

IJA:

and Bobrayner:

were engaged in tag-team reverting even before I got to the main article in question. Neither of which have received any kind of warning this time but have been strongly warned for tag-team edit warring before. Although I will admit my involvement did not help the dispute. Buttons (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't checked my notifications or talk page before editing. Still, I'd like some clarification as well, because essentially anything I happen to remove (such as a misplaced comma for example) would be a "revert" of someones. As for Bobrayners spurious accusations of sock/meat puppetry on my part, the admins have my blessing to run a check user if they like, so we can put Bobrayners go-to cop out to rest. Buttons (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Close without action. 1) United_Regions_of_Serbia: Editors are expected to discuss disputed changes. Buttons initiated discussion at Talk:United_Regions_of_Serbia on 15 April. Give no one replied, they should allowed to make their edit. 2) Geography of Kosovo: (You don't have the authority to make that decision on your own) is a substantially different statement than I own the article. Per consensus, none of us have the ability to make a content decision "on our own." The reverts cited were different content. 3) 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence: Special:Contributions/TrinaryEarth is not a revert only account, and Buttons is participating in discussion at Talk:2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#A_problem.

Regretfully, a lame technicality: the DS notification provided is invalid per the current arbcom requirements at Wikipedia:AC/DS#Awareness_and_alert, which requires the notification template be posted unmodified. (I agree that's its a lame rule totally out of sync with our iar pillar, but ya'll will have to take that up with the committee). NE Ent 12:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

As an active editor in this sensitive area, I think that the report is a bit hastily construed and does not offer substantial evidence. The United Regions of Serbia dispute is hardly under ARBMAC purview, and Buttons did discuss his changes, unlike his opponents. My general opinion about Buttons's editing is that he treads rather carefully and generally tries to obey policies, save for occasional intemperate revert (for which I plead guilty as well). Buttons does have an apparent pro-Serbian bias in the area, but likewise e.g. User:bobrayner and User:IJA, his opponents in this dispute, have a pro-Albanian bias. While I don't look positively at biased editing in general, we are all humans with opinions, and all of them are seasoned and productive editors. So far, nobody of them caused any significant disruption and they were able to contribute positively and respect consensus when it was formed. I don't think the dispute raises to the level where sanctions are required. This request should serve as reminder to all involved to do more discussion and less revert-warning. No such user (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like to point out that I don't know Buttons, I've had very minimal contact with him/her. The article "2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" is on my watchlist. As with other Kosovo related articles, there is lots of controversy and disputes ect. The article is prone to vandalism and POV pushing ect, it comes with the terrain. This is why it is important that we should reach a consensus on issues. If you look at Button's contributions, you can see that his/her sole purpose is out to edit war and cause trouble. I'd like to point out that I've only reverted Buttons twice. I've encouraged him/her to reach a WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page, he/she was reluctant to even use the talk page for a while. I suppose there is some guilt on my behalf for allowing myself to get caught up in Button's edit warring campaign on Kosovo related articles, I'm an experienced editor and I should know better; Buttons went fishing and I took the bait. Buttons is now trying to shift the blame on me. I don't think Buttons has ever made a constructive edit during his/her time on wikipedia. Judging by Button's contributions, it is all edit warring, arguing and causing trouble on Kosovo and Serbia related articles. I also believe he/she is in violation of WP:SOCK, I believe that Buttons and TrinaryEarth are the same person, Irrelevantdetails is likely to be another sock account too. I don't believe I'm in a position to comment on the other articles which Buttons has been edit warring on as I've not been involved with them articles. There is however, definitely a pattern with these articles when it comes to Buttons. Kind regards IJA (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I must say, I'm really not happy about Sandstein's claim of edit warring. I must strongly object and deny any allegations of Edit Warring. During the month of May, I made four reverts. Two of the reverts were against TrinaryEarth aka a single purpose troll sock account, which has since been blocked. The other two reverts were against Buttons who I assumed to be a trouble making account.

WP:EDITWAR states "Don't use edits to fight with other editors – disagreements should be resolved through discussion." On my second revert, I told Buttons to take this to the Talk Page. . The dispute was then taken to the talk page and it was dealt with there in a conversation, not in the form of an edit war. Reverting Buttons twice in a 24 hour period does not constitute as "Edit Warring", I didn't even violate the 3RR. I reverted Buttons and told him/ her to go to the talk page, so we took it to the talk page and it was discussed there. The dispute avoided escalating into an edit war by discussing the issue on the talk page. If anything, I think this is a perfect example of avoiding an edit war.

The facts are simple, there was a dispute on the article and it was taken to the talk page where the dispute cooled down/ ended. I really do not see how in a month of Sundays this can be perceived as edit warring. Kind regards IJA (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This false accusation of edit warring has really annoyed me because it isn't true. In May I have made four reverts in total, in two separate incidents. The first two reverts were against a sock called "TrinaryEarth", reverting a sock is NOT edit warring so we can take these two reverts out of the equation. My remaining two reverts were against Buttons, my second of these two reverts asked for him/ her to get a consensus on the talk page; Buttons subsequently joined in an ongoing discussion on the talk page and the dispute cooled down and came to an end; this avoided an edit war. I made only two reverts in a 24 hour period and then went to the talk page to discuss things to find a solution there instead. We tried/ attempted to resolve our differences through discussion, we avoided edit warring because of this. You just have to take a look at the talk page, the evidence is all there for everyone to see. I never make more than two reverts on one article within 24 hour period, this is because I want to stay out of edit wars. I discussed the disagreement on the talk page instead of edit warring. I tried to discuss the issue instead of having edit fights. Kind regards IJA (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Joy: Fair enough mate, thanks for raising this. We did indeed once disagree on Pristina-Priština-Prishtina. However I'd like to use this opportunity to point out that we discussed our disagreements on our talk pages. This is more evidence which proves that I use talk pages to settle (or at least try to settle) disagreements. Kind regards IJA (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Buttons' first edit since receiving his/her sanctions was to partially revert this revet. Is this in line with the recent sanctions imposed on Buttons? IJA (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I surprised by Buttons' chutzpah: Accusing me and IJA of "tagteaming" when:

• On one particular article, IJA and I both reverted obvious sockpuppets. TrinaryEarth (talk · contribs) is maybe Buttons, or Evlekis, or somebody else - there are so many different editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets pushing such ideas on en.wikipedia that it's difficult to be sure.
• Buttons arrived at the article after being canvassed by an Evlekis sock; Evlekis got permablocked for sock- and meat-puppetry on these topics.
• Buttons is still pushing the same POV as Evlekis - trying to insert a piece of legalese cherrypicked from a court document into the lede of 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, which dramatically changes the tone of the lede, and in no way is it a fair summary of what's actually in the article, let alone reliable sources. I recognise that WP:AE focusses strongly on conduct rather than content, but just look at the mess which Buttons is trying to put in the article.
• As with most such disputes, I tried starting a thread on the talkpage; when Buttons eventually went to the talkpage, they avoided the policy problems and instead attacked editors who disagree.
• Just because multiple editors disagree with you doesn't mean that they're conspiring against you; there is a much simpler explanation. Many more people have reverted Buttons - not just me and IJA - and on various subjects that I've never touched before (example: ). Various other editors have warned Buttons about this revert habit. None of the bullet-points in the definition of tag-teaming apply to IJA and I; but they do apply to Buttons and associates.
• Buttons has stalked me to other articles - for instance, when I cleaned up a dangling template inadvertently left by FPaS on Geography of Kosovo, Buttons immediately came to the article and reverted with a spurious edit summary. Buttons even followed me to Commons - their first edit was to revert my attempt to update a map. (Buttons promptly appeared in the middle of a dispute which was not linked from en.wiki; it's safe to assume there was some offsite canvassing). Or Brussels Agreement, or following my edits on obscure transport articles. When I reverted a sock on List of active separatist movements in Europe, Buttons suddenly came to the article and reinserted the same problematic content. Or how about Aleksandar Ranković, where Buttons suddenly appeared after I reverted an Evlekis-sock. The same happened at Constitution of Serbia. Elsewhere, when I reverted a problematic edit by Obozedalteima (talk · contribs) on Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars, Buttons magically appeared; their first edit on the page was to revert me. And so on. As with other examples, Buttons hadn't edited that article before. How am I guilty of tagteaming if it's Buttons (and socks and canvassers) who follow me around? Similarly, when Buttons systematically reverts other editors on other topics that I've no interest in, who is tagteaming there?
• Buttons has also been canvassed to other disputes, such as this by Aleksa Lukic. Note that Aleksa Lukic also suddenly appeared on Commons to repeat Buttons' revert there.
• Another sockpuppet, Irrelevantdetails, recently arrived to make pointy edits when Buttons didn't get their way. Considering the timestamps, and that the sock has good English skills, I assume it's Buttons rather than Evlekis. A checkuser might be enlightening. Yes, I reverted that sock too. No, that doesn't mean that I'm tagteaming.
• IJA and I are both interested in similar topics, but it's very unusual that we make the same reverts - we usually go our own way (and we've disagreed on a couple of recent issues).
• However, I'd like to underline that Buttons has done some great work in other areas where our edits intersect. For instance, many military inventory articles have quality problems, and Buttons has done fine work cleaning up those pages. I have no argument there. Similarly, Buttons improved this railway article that I wrote a while back. I would hope that Buttons can stop (or be stopped from) stalking and reverting me on politically controversial topics, but I don't want to stop productive edits elsewhere.
• I would also share No such user's view that most work in these areas is now mostly consensual. Our past problems have mostly eased, although there is a problem elsewhere (with a couple of other editors) which I'm reluctant to bring to WP:AE. Normal editing is mostly productive nowadays, and I would advocate a light touch with any WP:AE sanctions. Although, of course, sockpuppets still deserve a block and perhaps a checkuser - that is (I hope) routine enforcement which shouldn't have to come to WP:AE.

Sorry. I must borrow Pascal's apology; this response is so long because I do not have time to make it more concise. bobrayner (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I realise it's probably very bad form to disagree with an arb, but sadly I must disagree a little here :-)

Sandstein said "Their statements consist almost only of allegations of misconduct on the part of Buttons and others. This is irrelevant. Even if these allegations are true, they do not excuse the edit-warring by Bobrayner and IJA". However, as I mentioned earlier, I reverted socks. Out of the four diffs that Buttons provided, two were reverts of obvious socks - and if reverting a sockpuppet now counts as editwarring then we may as well all quit Balkans topics now and let the blocked & banned editors have free rein - whilst the remaining two were reverts of longstanding editors who should have known better. I freely admit to those two reverts - one revert of Antidiskriminator, and one revert of Buttons who had been canvassed by Evlekis.

Both those reverts removed attempts to distort the lede of an article by adding a legal disclaimer cherrypicked from a primary source. (Conversely, when a source doesn't fit Buttons' POV, WP:V suddenly becomes a very high bar - the Economist isn't acceptable, noted scholars published in university presses aren't acceptable, and so on). Yes, I made those two reverts, one on 21 April and one on 17 May. If two edits separated by four weeks really count as editwarring, then I must admit fully and honestly to editwarring, express my frustration that the rules have become so strict, and pray fervently that the editors who add this kind of pov-pushing daily will be held to a similar standard.

Could we clarify - if an editor follows me round and finds new pages on which to revert me, does that count as tag-teaming on my part? I hope not. bobrayner (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I should point out that Buttons's comments about prior editwarring and warnings are deeply deceptive, too.

Evlekis had a habit of using socks to edit-war with adversaries, then immediately filing a report on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, hoping to get the adversary blocked. (I can provide diffs of other examples if required, but am trying to avoid getting derailed here; please let me know if you want examples involving me, or other editors). That is exactly what happened in the case that Buttons links to; IJA and I both reverted an obvious Evlekis sock. Reverts of a sockpuppet do not count towards 3RR, of course, and the closing admin certainly didn't use the words that Buttons puts in their mouth. Buttons now tries to pretend that this was an actual 3RR violation, and conceals the fact that IJA and I were both reverting an Evlekis sock, and tries to use this to get sanctions against us; clearly, Buttons has completely taken up the baton from Evlekis. It's quite devious; I wouldn't blame any admin for failing to spot this sleight of hand.

Buttons: You weren't involved in that particular Evlekis-outbreak, and have never edited the affected article, and old WP:ANEW threads are very obscure. So, it looks like somebody gave you a diff that could be used to misrepresent my actions and get me sanctioned. Somebody who has previously canvassed you in a similar way; somebody who had a habit of passing diffs to allies that could be used to make adversaries look bad; somebody who had a history of abusing WP:ANEW to get adversaries blocked; somebody whose edits you have repeated; somebody who controlled the sockpuppet that IJA and I were reverting. bobrayner (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I realise that nobody's going to thank me for cleaning up after sockpuppets - it's earned me a couple of stalkers - but I would be very disappointed if it earned me sanctions. Anyway, let's look at something new.

• On 31 May, Buttons was given this sanction: "You are banned from undoing, in whole or in part, any revert (as defined in WP:3RR) with respect to content related to Kosovo or Serbia for the duration of a year."
• Buttons' first article edit after the sanction, on 3 June, is this partial revert of this revert by Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs), on 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence.

Although it's removing content that's obviously true and would be easy to source, there's no way I'm walking into that trap; will leave it to other editors... bobrayner (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

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

As discussed by NE Ent, we may not act on this request because the warning was not provided in the form required by the Arbitration Committee, and no evidence of how Button might otherwise have been aware of discretionary sanctions is provided. The complainant should alert Buttons with the required template, {{Ds/alert}}, and may resubmit this request if problems persist. I offer no opinion on the merits of the request, which I have not read in detail because of the abovementioned formal problem.  Sandstein  16:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Buttons was notified in November 2009 by User:Toddst1 here using an old-style notice. Since that notice is more than one year in the past, it seems not to count any more. Buttons should be notified now using {{Ds/alert}}. I recommend that User:TrinaryEarth be indefinitely blocked as a sock under normal admin authority. His account was created on 28 April and on 3 May he is already chatting away accusing Bobrayner of various things and restoring a contentious bit of text to the lead of 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. To keep down the general level of socking I recommend putting semiprotection on this article as well as United Regions of Serbia. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sandstein, NE Ent, and EdJohnston: That warning issued by Toddst1 does count under the continuity section of the new discretionary sanctions procedures. As it is a warning issued under the old system so it becomes an alert for twelve months after the new DS procedure passed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, thanks for catching this, you're right. Then I suppose we should wait for a statement by Buttons.  Sandstein  12:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I really fail to see the point in you trying to enforce this twelve month limit preemptively. If someone was informed in 2009 of a set of rules set forth in 2007, they can now claim that they are magically no longer informed of those rules in May 2015, and then again 366 days later in 2016, etc etc, ... which may just become ridiculous. If an editor accused of wrongdoing says explicitly that they're unaware of the rules to be enforced, and nobody reasonably disputes that, and the assumption of good faith is maintained overall, then they can avoid sanction. If we actively dismiss complaints on technicalities, this will have the effect of encouraging people to game the system. This is not a legal system and we should not try to replicate one. --Joy (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This was argued out by Arbcom (for what seems like forever) with lots of chances for the community to offer input. Anyway it doesn't change the situation for User:Buttons because he is still on notice even with the new rules, per Callanecc's observation. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't help but notice a double standard. We're supposed to allow people this much leeway with regard to failure to respect these common rules, but when those rules are changed for the worse, then tough luck, you had your chance to complain already, now go away? That's just an exercise in putting letter before the spirit of the rules, and it's really pointless. The practical result of this will be that every time I notice here that someone has gone through that kind of an instant evasion of an AE Balkans block, I will have to exercise my general admin discretion to sanction any abuse. --Joy (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Joy, I agree that the rules regarding expiring alerts are a bad idea, but this is not the place to argue about that, we need to follow the rules that we have, not the ones we may wish we had. On the merits, the report establishes that Buttons has engaged in slow edit-warring. This is sanctionable misconduct, and I recommend the following sanction: with respect to content related to Kosovo or Serbia, Buttons may not undo any revert. I agree that TrinaryEarth should be blocked as an account apparently created to evade scrutiny or sanctions, and am doing so.  Sandstein  15:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Buttons has not addressed their own edit-warring in their statement. A sanction that prevents Buttons from repeating such conduct is therefore indicated. As discussed above, Buttons is banned from undoing any revert with respect to content related to Kosovo or Serbia for the duration of a year. But Buttons also supplies evidence of tag-team edit-warring by Bobrayner and IJA, conduct against which the two were specifically warned. As is apparent from the sanctions log, both are aware of discretionary sanctions. I therefore invite Bobrayner and IJA to make a statement giving reasons why they should not likewise be sanctioned.  Sandstein  07:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate comments by other administrators about whether Bobrayner and IJA should also be sanctioned. I am of the view that this is likely necessary. Their statements consist almost only of allegations of misconduct on the part of Buttons and others. This is irrelevant. Even if these allegations are true, they do not excuse the edit-warring by Bobrayner and IJA.  Sandstein  16:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I have to recuse myself from commenting on that point because I remember recently having had a rather acrimonious discussion with user IJA about a Kosovo-related topic (1981 protests in Kosovo) at User talk:Joy/Archive/2014#Your revert / User:IJA/Archive 8#Re: Your revert. --Joy (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• It may be time to close this. Sandstein's one-year revert restriction on Buttons is appropriate. TrinaryEarth has been blocked. Based on the limited evidence here I'm not seeing a case to sanction Bobrayner or IJA, but I would listen to other suggestions. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• As noted by Bobrayner, Buttons has already violated their revert restriction. Their explanation that they did not check their talk page is not sufficient, because we cannot verify this claim. I am blocking Buttons for a week in enforcement of the restriction. As to Bobrayner and IJA, I am concerned that they do not seem to understand that it is never acceptable to edit-war even in the face of misconduct by others. However, there is an exception for reverting sockpuppetry in WP:3RRNO, and some of the editors they reverted were later blocked as socks, so this might be a sufficiently borderline case to forego sanctions at this time.  Sandstein  16:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Closing: User:Sandstein has banned User:Buttons from undoing any revert related to Kosovo or Serbia for one year. User:TrinaryEarth has been blocked as an account created to avoid scrutiny or sanctions. No action taken regarding User:Bobrayner or User:IJA. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Srich32977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics#SPECIFICO_topic-banned :

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

1. 16:12, 6 June 2014 – SPECIFICO converts Freedomain Radio from a redirect into an actual article. This conversion has the following Ludwig von Mises Institute personnel listed as part of the article:

• Walter Block – a Mises Institute Senior Fellow
• Stephan Kinsella – a Mises Academy instructor
• Robert P. Murphy – a Mises Institute Associated Scholar

1. 18:09, 6 June 2014 – Article talk page: Tells me I should not be canvassing. (I had pinged two other editors who had made some changes to the article page.)
2. 22:02, 6 June 2014 – Article talk page: Tells another editor that he had not done any pinging on the page.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

1. 16:33, 6 June 2014 – I notified SPECIFICO that I thought his edit had violated his TBAN because he included Mises Institute personnel in his edit.
2. 17:40, 6 June 2014 – I added to my notification, remarking that other editors had edited the Freedomain Radio article, making a revert to the non-TBAN redirect state less feasible.
3. 18:39, 6 June 2014 – I told Specifico that I had not pinged him on the article talk page because of the TBAN

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• User talk:SPECIFICO#ArbCom Enforcement requested

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

@EdJohnston: Hello Ed. In reply to your question below: What I did was to remove a redirect for Freedomain Radio and to copy undue detail verbatim from the biography of its proprietor, Stefan Molyneux to a new article on Freedomain Radio. I did this with a cut-and-paste and didn't even look at the list of guests in the section. There have been several recent threads here and elsewhere which have affirmed that my topic ban does not apply to the Molyneux article, notwithstanding the fact that there is some content on it which relates to people who are associated with the Mises Institute. I haven't touched that content on the Molyneux article, and I didn't touch it in the course of doing the move. There are various errors and omissions in OP's complaint, but I won't address them at this time. Does this respond to your question? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:Thanks for your reply. I did not intend to be making an excuse in my previous statement. Arbcom had already affirmed that it is not a violation for me to edit the article on Molyneux, who has nothing to do with the Mises Institute. The text that I relocated from that article contains only the names of two of the Mises Institute's list of affiliated academics, with no reference to the Mises Institute or to what those individuals discussed on the podcasts. It's hard to differentiate how my cut and paste violates the intention, purpose, or spirit of the TBAN any more than did my previous editing the Molyneux article. If I had thought that cut and paste would have triggered the question, I would have done a precautionary check of the text, just as I have checked the content in sections of the article I edit. If independent views would be helpful here, there have been several Admins involved in one way or another with the recent editing on Molynuex, among them @Gamaliel:, @DangerousPanda:, and @Daniel Case:, and @Vianello:. There may have been others as well. SPECIFICO talk 13:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Ed, your view was similar on the last time I was dragged here and the prevailing view disagreed with you. As I think I've made clear the violation if any was utterly de minimis and any principle by which it was a violation could easily be shown to imply that I would have been prohibited from editing Stefan Molyneux. I certainly want to sort this out and I have no interest in going against the mandate of Arbcom. I suggest that you and I both stand back and let others share their views. We can respond in a day or two after the issues are clarified. Please consider. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to request broadening of SPECIFICO's topic ban per the clause "should SPECIFICO edit problematically in the broader area, the topic-ban may be broadened if necessary through the discretionary sanctions". After being forced out of the Ludwig von Mises Institute/Austrian Economics area, SPECIFICO has exhibited the pattern of contentious editing, wiki-stalking, and insertion of false information into articles that "hover" just outside that topic ban (that mention/link to Mises people or views). He's essentially been playing around the electric fence rather than getting away to a safer distance.

I endorse S.Rich's report of this being a technically true violation of his current TBAN, but I request expansion. My proposed solution is simple: broaden SPECIFICOs topic ban to all the article pages of biographies and economic topics (allowing him to post on Talk pages may encourage him to work on presenting his arguments by citing sources, rather than just making contentious edits and not backing them up). I believe other sanctions would also be appropriate (such as interaction restrictions and limitation on number of edits he can make to each article in a single day), but before seeking a formal modification, perhaps the problems can be solved simply by moving his editing focus out of the topic areas where his passions become problematic. --Netoholic @ 02:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Srich32977: - The exception that allowed him to work on Austrian Economics was based on an assumption that he is an expert in the field, but I think I have evidence that shows some doubt as to his general competence, POV, or both. If he is failing to find new reliable sources AND is inserting false information even when sources are provided for him, then I think its unlikely that his "expert" status is valid or even relevant ... and so any exception that allows him to work in the Austrian Economics area is not warranted, and broadening the TBAN to biographical and economic areas will help protect the basic, factual integrity of those articles and stop contentious editing (Talk:Fractional reserve banking, Talk:Full-reserve banking are good examples of this battling pattern). --Netoholic @ 02:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Alanyst: With due respect, his editing pattern is still focused around the LvMI, its just that now he's working on the fringes. In retrospect, I was very unlucky to pick the wrong moment to come back to WP to work on the Molyneux article, since I started basically right as the ArbCom limited SPECIFICO from the direct LvMI stuff. My work to source out and expand the article just attracted his time and attention at the moment he had a lot to give. If it wasn't this article, it'd have been something else really close to LvMI, some other article that makes reference to LvMI people or values which can be edited negatively and, by association, perhaps disparage the LvMI. If he had taken the lesson of the ArbCom seriously, he'd have moved on to some completely different topic area rather stay near the electric fence to get burned today. -- Netoholic @ 05:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Specifico is not topic banned from Austrian Economics articles, only from those aspects in which the Ludwig von Mises Institute or LvMI connected people are involved. I do not endorse expanding the TBAN beyond LvMI. But I do request enforcement as per the TBAN violation documented above. – S. Rich (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

If there "are various errors and omissions" in my posting, I'd like Specifico to point them out rather than make WP:ASPERSIONS. I will be happy to clarify, correct, retract, or expand as necessary. – S. Rich (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Several points: 1. Specifico has failed in his last two postings to describe the "various errors and omissions" of my submission. I'd say this is because his allegation has no substance or the E&O are so trivial that he really shouldn't have mentioned the allegation to begin with. (Perhaps he was simply making a diversionary remark.) But if he wants to "sort this out", he should WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP. 2. Specifico has made 109 edits to the Molyneux article, about 10% of the total. I'd expect a high degree of familiarity with the contents in Molyneux to be the result. Besides, Specifico is a published PhD'd academic, so I'd expect a great deal of accuracy. 2.a. Specifico is correct that editing Molyneux as an article is not against his TBAN, but adding or subtracting or changing any material related to Mises Institute people in any article clearly is. 2.b. As Specifico had been brought up on this page previously for edits to the same topic (Molyneux(, I'd expect him to be more cautious from the get-go. 3. Specifico's edits (the cut and the paste) involved the names of not 1, not 2, but of 3 Mises related people. This attempt to minimize the error in terms of the number really does not mitigate the error, but makes it worse. 4. Specifico continued to comment on the Freedomain Radio talk page after he had been warned about the improper edit. He should have said "Woops! I fucked up." and then steer clear of the topic all together. 4.a. He has been "dragged here" because he could not stay away from the article and start commenting about the particular TBAN edit he made. – S. Rich (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The dispute at hand is primarily between SPECIFICO and Netoholic, and has not touched on the LvMI topic from which SPECIFICO is banned, except for the mention of certain LvMI associates in the content that SPECIFICO spun off into its own article. While that is technically a violation of the topic ban, I do not perceive an attempt to trespass it intentionally. An admonition to be more careful would be the appropriate remedy, and a block or widening of the topic ban would be disproportionate in my view.

Aside from the small infraction regarding the LvMI related material, the complaints here seem to boil down largely to run-of-the-mill differences of opinion regarding sources and content, and a growing feud between Netoholic and SPECIFICO. The latter bears investigation and possibly intervention by a savvy admin, but seems outside the bounds of the original arbitration and might be best dealt with in an RfC/U or other DR venue. alanyst 05:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

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

• SPECIFICO has made edits that add the names of staff members of the Mises Institute to an article. One of the names he added was that of Walter Block, who is listed among the Mises faculty. This seems to be a violation of SPECIFICO's ban from the topic of the Mises Institute. Can he explain why he should not be blocked? EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Inattention doesn't excuse you from following your topic ban. You should not have been copying that material. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• When closing an AE, admins sometimes take no action if the person clearly understands their violation and agrees not to repeat it. What I'm hearing you say is that you did not violate your ban and you are not responsible for the content of what you add to articles, so long as you copied it from somewhere else. Is this really the best you can do? EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• The request has merit. SPECIFICO has violated their topic ban as explained above. Their statements indicate that they exhibit an attitude of less than full and prompt compliance with the Arbitration Committee decision. Accordingly, SPECIFICO is blocked for two weeks in enforcement of the topic ban. As to the evidence submitted by Netoholic, it does not appear to be actionable in this context. It either reflects content disputes (the alleged errors in articles), which are outside the scope of arbitration, or conduct mostly outside the topic area covered by the decision (the alleged stalking).  Sandstein  16:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)