Revision as of 15:25, 4 September 2008

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Edit this section for new requests

Sarah Palin

MBisanz has full protected this article for two weeks citing the "Footnooted Quotes" arbcom ruling. According to that ruling, the protection can only be overturned per consensus developed through discussion here on the Arbitration enforcement board. Thus I am creating this section for the discussion that is sure to come. Mike R (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's very important that we get BLP articles right. History shows that when a major news story breaks, there is typically a frenzy of editing on the related article (e.g. the Virginia Tech shootings). This period is typically marked by short periods of full protection, longer periods of semi-protection, and lots of reverts. It's painful, but in the end it generates the right article. The problems with POV pushing can and should be resolved by strict use of the blocking policy. But extended full protection goes against our basic principle that content is created through public editing. In previous cases, articles generated by a writing frenzy have turned out well, and I am sure that Palin's article will as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Full protection - This is going to be a VERY contervisal article about a living person, and the controversy will not stop within the next few days (especially with all of the media coverage of her). It has generated a MASSIVE influx of POV pushers, and other editors trying to get there agenda point across. These are particulary difficult to defend against as it often takes time to research toe sources cited to determine if they are reliable sources or not and if they are in violation of policies. By the time this is done, several intermediate revisions can have occured by either neutral or biased editors making it even more difficult to determine what is the right content to have in there. In this case I bnelieve full protection is necessary for the protection of the living person to prevent false/negative information from finding its way in there and/or accidently being kept. Chrislk02 15:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We have new editors inserting BLP violations, we have established editors edit warring. Protection is right at this point. I don't think 2 weeks should be set in stone, we can play it by ear. Lets give these people time to thrash it out on the talk page instead of the article. Once some clear consensuses have formed we will be better suited to deal with new users. Chillum 15:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Chillum is correct. We may be able to remove the full protection in less than two weeks, but we need a little time for the media feeding frenzy to die down, and for the new editors this article has attracted to learn how to discuss on the talk page. To Carl's comment above - it was completely impossible to utilize the warning or blocking policies. The editing volume was so impossibly high that you simply could not figure out who was doing what in hundreds of edits per hour. Please let things settle down, for the most controversial issues to be hashed out on the talk page and dealt with through edit requests, then we can look at early unprotection. I have been involved with this article since the Palinsanity started, and I know of what I speak. Kelly 15:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I acted after reviewing the situation, the edits made during the period of semi-protection, as well as the several days of discussion over the BLP violations in various forums. Regardless of her public stature, we cannot violate a subject's rights just because we are an open encyclopedia. Given that in the 45 minutes it was semi-protected this morning, numerous edit warring over unsourced or poorly sourced statements occurred, I am of the opinion that the full protection of the article was the only responsible choice. Remember that in a given day 119,000,000 people view Misplaced Pages. So even 5 minutes of an article having a poorly sourced statement, may mean 1000s of people view that statement and that immense harm is done to the subject of the article. If the debate here results in some time less than two weeks for full protection, I will agree, but for the time being, I remain of the feeling that the only responsible option is full protection. MBisanz 15:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Xasha

This is copied from my talk page: User_talk:Rlevse#Could_you_help.3F: Hello. Could you rap Xasha a little? He seems to ignore the ban he received last month (, ). For your info, I've also just reminded him of the ban. Thank you. Ovidiu2all (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's messages like these that expose you as a sock.Xasha (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This set of users has made a habit of coming to my talk page, but I now feel it is time for more uninvolved admins to look at this situation and handle as appropriate. Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

More from my talk:

Xasha, remember this: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Xasha#Topic_ban

See this ... Xasha, I don't think you hurt the topic ban in this article (actually I think your changes were fine), but you modified some articles that are definately disputed concerning your topic ban: Moldovans (the article that brought this topic ban to you and me) and Moldovan-Romanian relations. I don't even dare to think about editing those articles in order to prevent a topic-ban hurt. --Olahus (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I consider all my edits to be improving the quality of wikipedia (and even my contester agree: see for proof Olahus' opinion above, and Ovidiu2all's self-revert to my last version diff). In the view that all my recent edits had a similar benficial effect for Misplaced Pages, I sincerely believe to be abiding to WP:IAR to the letter and, more important, in its spirit.Xasha (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not an argument. Every user (incl. vandals, edit-waaroirs, trolls, sockpuppets etc) considers that all his edits do improve the quality of wikipedia. If it really is so ... well ... that's something different. Believe me, I would also like to change the articles you edited (with references, of course) but I DO respect my topic ban. --Olahus (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides, you could have made a proposal in the talk pages of the articles. But no! You directly edited the articles and ignored your topic ban. --Olahus (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If a user is under a topic ban, he/she is under a topic ban. Period. Any further edits by Xasha on articles in which he/she is restricted will result in a block for ban evasion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In this case I ask also for the permission to edit 1 (one) time those disputed articles. I intend to do it in order to improve the quality of this encyclopedia and I won't forget to provide the sources. --Olahus (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

DreamGuy

Case and section: DreamGuy 2: DreamGuy is subject to a behavioral editing restriction. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

• DreamGuy has been editing the article Yanartaş, introducing some minor changes which seem very important to him, and which have produced ungrammatical and unintelligible English. He also moved it, apparently without discussion.
• This move was brought to WP:RM, and I !voted. In the course of the discussion, the question arose whether the article is about an ancient site, as it was originally written, or the modern location with which it has been identified.
• Since the changes had preserved 90% of the text, leaving 5% novel and 5% gibberish, I reverted to explain what the article had originally been about, merging in the new text.
• In the course of this DreamGuy appeared out of nowhere, making exact reversions; his edit summaries include again, can't just revert the article to how it existed more than a year ago like you WP:OWN the article. Some very bizarre actions going on in this article. For those who care, this is the second of two exact reverts; there is more charming language on the talk page.

This last seems like an uncivil assumption of bad faith. Has he broken his edit restriction? (And if not, please somebody watch the page...) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on. There's charming language on the talkpage from most everybody, and I really can't see DreamGuy assuming any more bad faith than the people analysing his character there. You call him "notoriously intemperate", but are you perhaps rather angry yourself? I ask because you sound it. What's wrong with "turning up out of nowhere", for instance? I often do. And turning up to reply to people when they're comfortably telling each other what a horrible person he is seems positively to be expected; you don't need to be "notoriously intemperate" to do it. Where is the "ungrammatical and :unintelligible English"? The only example of such that you cite in the Requested Moves discussion is his "Some sources state that this geothermically active region was the inspiration for the myth Ctesias." What's wrong with that? As for the edit summary you offer as "an uncivil assumption of bad faith"—it's not especially sweet-tempered, but how is it uncivil or assuming bad faith? I can't believe the ArbCom had this kind of thing in mind when they issued the editing restriction. Bishonen | talk 00:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC).

• • Am I annoyed? Yes; anyone would be at being reverted within minutes of beginning to edit an article and abused in the edit summaries.
  • Is DreamGuy's intemperance notorious? Well, I saw it mentioned on ANI months before and after the arbitration, and ArbCom found "DreamGuy has frequently engaged in incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks directed at other editors."
  • What's wrong with Ctesias? Ctesias isn't a myth; he's an author. DreamGuy has mangled the two sentences Chimaera, in antiquity, in addition to being the name of a monster, was the name of a volcanic site which was held , by euhemerizing geographers, to have inspired the myth. and Ctesias (as cited by Pliny the Elder and quoted by Photius) identified the Chimaera with an area of permanent gas vents which can still be found today by hikers on the Lycian Way in southwest Turkey. into one.

At least keep watch over this reverter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether ArbCom had this kind of thing in mind or not. But this edit summary, and the accusation that Pmanderson is violating WP:OWN contained therein, strikes me as a personal attack. Rather than recognize that he and Pmanderson have a substantive disagreement over the content of the article, and attempt to discuss the problem on the talk page, DreamGuy accuses Pmanderson of a policy violation (implicitly dismissing his position as invalid). Now, it's true that editors do this kind of thing all the time, but it still doesn't seem like the way to foster a collaborative editing environment.

DreamGuy has done this kind of thing elsewhere. Here's a recent revert on Jesus myth hypothesis, with an edit summary that reads "more to the point, your refusing to accept what a reliable source says just because you disagree does not make it not a reliable source. Your edits are plainly POV-pushing and against WP:NPOV". This is after a fairly extensive post on the talk page explaining my edit, to which DreamGuy responded "So, basically, you don't want to use it because it disagrees with the POV you've been clearly pushing in this article for ages now. You don't get to remove cites to reliable sources just because you disagree with them." That strikes me as an assumption of bad faith, at least.

Again, I have no idea if ArbCom intended this kind of behavior to fall under the sanction. But I do know that when DreamGuy calls those with whom he disagrees POV-pushers or accuses them of policy violations instead of seeing that they merely have a garden-variety content dispute, it makes editing less enjoyable, and sometimes (as WP:CIVIL puts it) "results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress." --Akhilleus (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh my. I have just been trying to discuss a separate matter with DreamGuy, and as the user has failed to substantiate his edit summaries which I deem bad faith accusations, I came here to report it. I have looked at the above, and it is some bad faith edit summaries, but they are borderline. Take a look at this one: "comment... known meat puppet of Elonka's is major editor if the Essay created by Elonka and now voting here also in true tag teaming style - ironic, eh?" At User_talk:DreamGuy#meat_puppetry_accusation I asked the user to provide evidence of this meat puppetry accusation, but none has been forthcoming despite having quite clearly requested then, days to respond with diffs, and having been told on my user talk that "a community of editors (including a number of admins) have agreed that Fat Cigar is a meat puppet". If this is an open and shut case of meat puppetry, diffs should be easy to provide. Instead I am being given thinly veiled accusations of being a hot head, blind, irresponsible, etc. Without diffs that predate the accusation, there was no reason to attack Elonka and FatCigar in this way, and the arbcom remedies were intended to stop this rot. John Vandenberg 04:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Boy, the accusations sure do fly all the time. Once again the people making them seem to be trying to use the ArbCom decision against me as some sort of excuse for assuming bad faith and so forth. These latest complaints are just more of the same over the top claims.

As far as Pmanderson's complaint above, I can't for the life of me figure out what he means by "DreamGuy appeared out of nowhere, making exact reversions" -- the fact of the matter is that I have been on the article all along, watchlisting it, and looking at the edits over the past year by other editors and approving them. It was some new editor who came out of nowhere (new user account with limited history) and tried to move the whole article by copying and pasting the text to another article, and then Pmanderson came back after a more than year gap to revert back to *his* exact old version of the article, adding back the claims about the origin of the Chimera myth that are simply not the accepted beliefs of modern mythologists and authors. Pmanderson and this new editor, joined some other editor who is posting comments there as if he has been editing the article all along and that they had a consensus I was ignoring but has never edited it all at as far as I can see, seem to have immediately jumped to making personal attacks on myself, setting up a supposed consensus before discussing it. He also claims "He also moved it, apparently without discussion.", which is silly, as the article has been at that name for more than a year... it was someone else who came out of nowhere to move it with a copy and paste. Certainly that kind of odd behavior (false claims about consensus, who moved what, etc.) constitutes as bizarre actions, but it looks like he wants to try to exaggerate that statement into an attack of some sort. The bottom line is that Pmanderson is actually guilty of the reverting, making sweeping changes without attempts at establishing consensus, etc., and apparently decided to jump here to make a report hoping that people won't take any time to look into it and just assume that he's right.

John Vandenberg above is all upset that I pointed out that a brand new editor with no edit history showed up to strongly and aggressively support another editor in an RFC, and then continued on to support that same editor in edits to an essay and on her talk page during a recall attempt. A number of other editors have noticed this, including admins User:Jehochman in this edit (and others) and User:Bishonen in this edit directly supporting me against John's complaint). Those are just two I turned up rather quickly -- those are certainly not either of those two editors' first comments on the puppet account, nor are they the only editors who noticed it. They labeled Fat Cigar a sockpuppet, but I took the added extra step of assuming good faith and referred that user as a meatpuppet instead, as a sockpuppet would be deliberate attempts to deceive and a meatpuppet could be more innocent (a friend hopping in starting a new account thinking he is helping, or whatever), albeit still a major problem. John Vandenberg for some unknown reason decided to treat this as some huge offense and to go after me personally... his communication always focused on the ArbCom decision on me instead of the normal process of identifying and dealing with puppets.

The fact of the matter here is that ever since the ArbCom decision was made I have been hounded by people who constantly assume bad faith about my actions and, whenever any sort of disagreement comes up, use it as a club against me to attempt to get me to do what they want me to do instead of following what the decision was supposed to uphold: that everyone here should be civil and follow policies. This ArbCom decision was intended to promote better good faith dealings between editors, but instead all it did was put a target on my head with people who prefer to use it as a shortcut to prevailing in whatever conflict they have instead of trying to resolve that conflict by normal methods of communication and fair dealings. Nobody who disagrees with any edits I make even has to try to resolve anything anymore, they just treat me as a second class citizen they can either ignore or antagonize and then go run off to report me.

Frankly, the best thing ArbCom can do to improve editor cooperation is to unambiguously tell editors that just because I have an ArbCom sanction against me doesn't mean they get to ignore policies themselves whenever they are in any conflict that involves me. Pmanderson's complaint here is a transparent attempt to prevail in an edit conflict that he started up again a year later after failing to get consensus the first time around, and John Vandenberg seems to want to dispute what the other editors said about Fat Cigar's puppeting but for some reason chose me to go after. DreamGuy (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, Fat Cigar (talk · contribs) is obviously not a new editor. On the other hand, I doubt they're a "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet" of Elonka - I don't think she'd be involved in that sort of thing. Fat Cigar's topics of interest and likes/enmities immediately bring to mind Jagz (talk · contribs), and I'm half-minded to file a checkuser request along those lines. But I guess we're getting off track. MastCell  21:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As everyone here prolly knows, I am not a fan of DG, and personally think he's about as cuddly as a hand grenade. That said, I think that what we are actually seeing here is as follows:

• DG is not perceived as a polite person, and instead of working amicably with people to arrive at a compromise/consensus, he tends to trout-slap folk, and I am increasingly of the opinion that he cannot (instead of will not) control this behavior. Unfortunately, it tends to happen a lot. If it can drive seasoned editors up a wall (across the ceiling and down the opposite wall), imagine how much less fun it must be for the relatively new users who could benefit from the use of honey to vinegar? I submit that DG might see such behavior as a waste of time (not just his detractors, but with everyone; one tends to develop a fairly quick bite reflex when used to working on fringe theories and the like), and his reaction to such is largely counter-productive, turing potential allies into bitter enemies.
• I cannot be sure, but TexasAndroid and myself are suspecting that that someone is trying to set up DG, albeit clumsily.
• That DG seems to see anyone opposing his edits as part of a vast conspiracy of blind-editing POV-pushers hardly helps matters.

It seems that DG is walking towards a hole that an unknown party seems all too willing to dig for him.

I think DG needs to walk away from his comfort zone of articles for a bit, and try out working with articles where his personal knowledge aren't going to lead him into incivility or a trap of some sort. Of course, he might very well see that as a punishment for having done little wrong (at least, 'little' to his reckoning), but if he cannot improve his behavior, he is going to eventually be indef blocked and/or banned. I would rather not see that happen. - Arcayne () 00:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, this isn't Editor Review or a Request for Comment. PhilKnight (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

DreamGuy, you didnt just call it a sock puppet as Jehochman did. You turned it into a personal attack on Elonka as part of your ongoing dispute with her. You have yet to substantiate your claim. John Vandenberg 03:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Jayvdb, the account is blatantly a pro-Elonka sock puppet, which is essentially what DG said. I don't consider his comments to be an infringement of the ArbCom restrictions. Also, I don't believe he needs to make a further clarification. PhilKnight (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I will request checkuser on the account, since accusations are flying. If it is User:Jagz, indef blocked, then the account obviously needs to be blocked. Should DreamGuy make any uncivil comments, I recommend redacting them first. If DG restores an uncivil remark, then blocking could be used. Additionally, Arcayne has a log history with DG. I would advise both of those parties not to make reports on each other. If somebody is acting up, others will notice and file any necessary reports. (For transparency: I have blocked DG in the past.) Jehochman 10:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

One cannot redact an edit summary, and that's where Pmanderson, I, and John Vandenberg said that incivility/assumptions of bad faith were happening. --Akhilleus (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should take that up with the developers. It does not sound like a difficult technical problem to let administrators erase uncivil edit summaries. That would be a very useful capability. At the moment, if an edit summary is uncivil (or contains other inapproprate info) we can administrator delete or oversight the edit. When people are acting trollish, we want to deny recognition of their remarks and minimize drama. The current scheme (uncivil remark -> WP:AE -> block -> unblock request -> debate) is exactly what should be avoided. Jehochman 11:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't care whether the edit summaries remain or not. I don't care whether DreamGuy is blocked or not. I simply want someone uninvolved to look at these incidents and let DreamGuy know that certain aspects of his edit behavior do not encourage cooperation. Once you call someone a POV-pusher, it pretty much stops collaboration dead. --Akhilleus (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I don't care if they are removed, I want him not to make more of them. It would be nice to not be reverted; I would even be happy at not being reverted in thirty seconds and without discussion; but I will settle for being reverted without abuse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. While I don't believe DG's actions violate the letter of his ArbCom restriction, they do violate the spirit. I suggest he refrains from bad-faith assumptions in his edit summaries and takes the discourse to the talk page instead- editors dueling with edit summaries has, in my experience, always led to an increase in tensions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 15:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

1. To Akhilleus: you're in the wrong place, Akhilleus. See the top of the page: "This is a message board for requesting and discussing enforcement of Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) decisions." (Enforcement = blocks.) That's the exclusive purpose of the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. It doesn't make any sense to post a variety of complaints against DreamGuy here while insisting that you're not interested in actual enforcement against DreamGuy. ("I don't know whether ArbCom had this kind of thing in mind or not."..."Again, I have no idea if ArbCom intended this kind of behavior to fall under the sanction.".. "I don't care whether DreamGuy is blocked or not. I simply want someone uninvolved to look at these incidents.") I have a lot of respect for you, Akhilleus, but I'm afraid the impression you leave in this case is a paradoxical one: your posts can only have the effect of supporting the likelihood for enforcement blocks, assuming that a sufficiently trigger-happy admin strolls by. If that isn't what you're interested in, then please don't post complaints here. Take 'em to ANI or something
2. To Arcayne: you're in the wrong place too, and saying the wrong things. As Phil Knight points out above, this isn't Editor Review or Requests for Comment. I've told you before that conduct advice from you to DreamGuy is only going to have the effect of aggravating him. I thought you agreed. Yet here you are again, talking to him "like a father" (after first being this snarky on his page). If you want to report him here, fine, great, report him. But please don't take your itch to "advise" DreamGuy here, too. If you're irresistibly impelled to analyse his character flaws, can't you just type it into a text editor and ceremonially burn the document, or something?
3. To most everybody: no, DreamGuy isn't cuddly, but could you please take account of, and mention, context when you report people, any people, for incivility here? There's a limit to how far the argument "but he's under a civility restriction and those other people aren't" will take you. (Because baiting an editor that you know is under civility parole is actually especially bad.) As I said at the beginning of this thread, if people are having a cosy conversation on an article talkpage about what a terrible person you are, it's pretty human to be terse in response to them. Can I ask you to make a habit of looking at the preceding edit summaries in the history of an article or talkpage, lest your WP:AE report be biased? More: the whole bad faith thing in this thread strikes me as overdone and a bit absurd. Click on the links, please. Is DreamGuy really assuming bad faith? (PManderson had no reply when I asked him above, and I still don't get what he meant by bad faith.) And: is DreamGuy replying to people who're clearly assuming bad faith from him? I'm not asking you to ignore sanction violations if he is; but please describe that situation in your report. I want to note that Akhilleus, giving these links, does describe the situation, allowing the reader to evaluate it, and in fact showing rather rude editing by DreamGuy. Thank you, Akhilleus. (Even though I have a low opinion of some of your examples of "personal attacks" and "bad faith". Referring to WP:OWN isn't assuming bad faith, and isn't a personal attack. It's just a silly way of shooting oneself in the foot by showing one doesn't have any real arguments. But then so is referring to WP:AGF and WP:NPA, you know. Apply within for a short list of policies that have their virtues, but are just no good to hurl as brickbats.) Bishonen | talk 18:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC).

• • If Bishonen can read Some very bizarre actions going on here, especially combined with the accusations about advancing a fringe POV and a group of editors ganging up on him, as not being a suggestion of conspiracy, how else can they be read? (I'm not entirely clear what POV DreamGuy has in mind, which is the problem with this sort of quarrel by edit-summary; but it sounds like he is objecting to a view I do not hold.)
  • The purpose of the last ArbCom case was to stop DreamGuy from using abusive language. Do we have to start DreamGuy 3 to accomplish that result? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    • At this point, any block is going to be punitive, rather than preventative, so there is no point in discussing further. Please go to WP:RFAR, Requests for Clarification, if you think better remedies are needed. It is my experience that people with civility issues are not deterred by sequential blocks. Quite the opposite, blocking tends to cause agitation and often leads to worse disruption. Jehochman 07:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
    • There is a checkuser result: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jagz  Inconclusive. Jehochman 07:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Fat Cigar is so obviously Jagz...we can't be taken for a ride on this one. Blocked indef. Moreschi (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I do not know who Fat Cigar is, and it is categorically false for DreamGuy to imply that Fat Cigar is acting at my request, such as to say that Fat Cigar is a "known meatpuppet of Elonka's". This is yet another violation of DreamGuy's ArbCom sanctions, as he has recently been making many other false statements about me and others. I have cautioned him at his talkpage, but the cautions do not seem to be working, as he is continuing to make bizarre attacks. I therefore recommend a block in order to enforce the ArbCom sanctions. His block log is already quite long, so at this point I would recommend a block of at least one week. --Elonka 07:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree, though I think a one week block will only provide a temporary respite, and then he will return, angrier. It would be more useful to arrange a long term solution to the problem. Perhaps an acceptable mentor can be found. There is a big difference between saying an account is a sock, and saying an account is a sock of somebody (when there is absolutely zero evidence of the second person's involvement). Jehochman 13:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, you have been told repeatedly, by multiple admins, to disengage from situations involving me. I strongly recommend that you follow that advice. --Elonka 17:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

My name was mentioned on this thread, and I commented here first. This page is on my watchlist and I post here regularly. Jehochman 18:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe Jehoch is correct in that a block will only enflame the situation further, and currently would only serve as a punitive action. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(Regarding Bishonen's earlier comments which addressed me by name) Actually, you missed the mark at least twice there, Bish. Firstly, I wasn't trying to talk to DG "like a father"; my observations were for the group, not that individual. It was provided to present some perspective as to why the behavior occurs/continues. I wouldn't presume to advise him; he doesn't think there is anything wrong with his behavior, and I am but a part of the vast conspiracy to 'get' him. The advice he needs surpasses the ability and legal liability of the wiki to offer. Secondly, my apology on DG's page for hastily filing a checkuser on him and an anon was met with somewhat less than cordiality (nothing new, tho'), My response was somewhat incredibly restrained. It wasn't snarky at all; tongue-in-cheek would be a better description. Wit is not snark.

Lastly, I would point out that DG built the restriction box he is in, and no one is pointing and laughing at him, nor are they arguing about the construction of it. They just want DG to respect the restrictions he is under. Are folk going to be a bit more judgemental and quick to report him when he steps out of that box? Absolutely - and they should. The restrictions are primarily there to protect the community from the incivility and system-gaming. The secondary purpose is to guide DG towards the realization that so long as his behavior remains unadaptive, he is going to re-encounter these issues over and over again. If he feels goaded by the restrictions, or even being reminded of them, he should focus less on the Grand Unfairness of It All, and more on the reasons as to why someone might be pointing them out.

While there might in fact be one or two unknown users diligently trying to have DG removed from our community permanently, the greater majority of the folk taking issue with his behavior are an ever-widening circle of editors who never dealt with him before. Where there is smoke, there is often fire. - Arcayne () 18:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, DavidFuchs and Jehochman, if blocking DreamGuy isn't the way to go here, what other methods of persuasion are left available to us? For practically everyone else, just having been the sole subject of an ArbCom complaint would be enough to modify one's behavior. Certainly not one but two modifications to the restrictions should serve to reinforce that modification. And yet, for DreamGuy, it hasn't been anything approaching effective.

Let me put it another way. You have an employee at your business who is rude to customers and smarts off to you. You give him a warning and the bahvior stops for a bit before returning. You issue a second warning, and the pattern repeats a few times. You then give him fewer hours to work (to ensure your business isn't disrupted by the rudeness), but that doesn't abate the behavior. How many times do you dock the pay and remove them from the schedule before enough is enough? - Arcayne () 18:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

<- Arcayne, I agree with you that repeated bad behavior needs to be addressed. If DreamGuy is causing problems, and if past blocks have not been effective deterrent, perhaps a mentor would help. If that fails, stronger measures may be needed. Is there anybody who would be willing to mentor DreamGuy? DreamGuy, would you be willing to accept a mentor? Jehochman 18:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(Outdenting.) I'm looking—a little incredulously—at Elonka's remark to Jehochman above—"you have been told repeatedly, by multiple admins, to disengage from situations involving me, I strongly recommend that you follow that advice". Since the conversation (or, largely, monologue) has moved so far since then, I don't think anybody would notice a response from me to Elonka up there. I'm putting it here, I hope that's not confusing. Here goes:
Oh, that's appropriate, Elonka, to tell Jehochman to disengage from situations involving you. This is primarily a situation involving DreamGuy. You're on the extreme outer edge of it. For you to come here to deny knowledge of Fat Cigar is fine, naturally—I for one believe you—but issuing advice about what punishment you would "recommend" for your ancient adversary DreamGuy is not fine, and if you had better judgment, you wouldn't be doing it. You have a COI about DreamGuy. That's putting it mildly. Please disengage. Bishonen | talk 18:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC).

Agree with Bishonen - in addition, Elonka has been previously advised to leave situations involving PHG to other admins, and the same principle applies here. PhilKnight (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

These matters seem quite tangential to the issue at hand. I would block based on the editing restrictions for this comment referred to above, but for it being stale now. It first came to my attention as the closing admin of the MfD and I found it exceptionally uncivil and ABF.--Doug. 19:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's avoid the side issues and focus on the problem at hand. DG is supposed to endeavor to be civil with the rest of Misplaced Pages. The link given by Doug clearly shows he was not civil. As his las block was 4 days long, what would be the next plateau?

On a side note, I think that DG's long-running problem has rendered a great many editors and admins unable to look at just the current event, but all the others that have led to it. However, that's just my opinion. - Arcayne () 22:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And my opinion is that we should attempt to resolve the issue before blocking further. At some point, indef blocks may be necessary-but I'd rather attempt to get DG to accept a mentor or the like and save us the time of slowly implementing incremental blocks before someone says "what the hell" and doesn't put in an end date. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 22:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Will he accept mentoring? What do we do if he chooses not to accept such? - Arcayne () 00:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I would defer that task to an admin who DG prolly knows, or at least someone he's more likely to respond to. If he doesn't, and continues in disruptive action, then we can contemplate longer blocks. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 15:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I can pretty much guarantee that DG will not accept any mentor, any time. He has previously quite unequivocally condemned the whole mentoring program. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. If he is interested, he can say so at any point. Otherwise, we are left with the choice of carrying out a sanction that has proven ineffective time and again, ignoring the problem, or asking the Committee for help to craft a better sanction (which they probably won't or can't do). Jehochman 16:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Well, lt's not make absolutist statements for the guy. I am sure that if he recognizes that he may recognize the choice between the devil and the deep blue sea and act wisely. I am not going to post the idea on his usertalk, as Bish seems to think I am the vinegar in the kool-aid when posting to DG, so someone else who hasn't been marked as part of the Cabal would be best. - Arcayne () 16:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Previous attempts to deal with him have failed because they have been of the type of "let's block him and hope he behaves better when he comes back". But then he never acknowledges any remorse, he refuses to acknowledge the validity of the ArbCom sanctions ("yet another block for no sensible reason whatesoever"), then he waits out the block, comes back, and goes back to the same disruptive behavior, which just leads to another block, and round the cycle goes again. So what I recommend this time, is to block him, and then do not unblock unless DreamGuy acknowledges his ArbCom sanctions and promises that he will abide by them. That would be more effective, since we'd actually get his word on things, rather than us just vainly hoping for change. It would also be a good sign if DreamGuy would change the uncivil message at the top of his talkpage. If he could do those things, then I would support an unblock. But if he cannot even, at a minimum, promise to change his behavior, then just leave the block in place. --Elonka 16:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

<- I agree that a block is the appropriate response, that's what ArbCom gave us for a solution and I don't think we should be requiring admins to water that all down with offers for mentorship etc. Anyone wants to offer that on their own and then present the success of the offer here as mitigation, go for it. On the other hand, Elonka, an indef block is not supported by the ArbCom decision and would have to be independently warranted, which it certainly is not. I count two logged blocks. The max block continues to be one week, unless I'm reading things wrong.--Doug. 17:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a block is the right response - I have noticed from my limited interactions with DG that people do tend to pile into him a little heavily. I think the most important thing for him to try and adhere to is to comment on the content, not the contributor, as the latter seems to be what gets him into trouble the most. Brilliantine (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but at some point if he continues to refuse to do so, and accept measures such as mentoring to do so, he effectively puts us in the positive of just grinning and bearing the harassment, or blocking him for an extended (possibly indefinite) period until he learns not to disrupt. Based on previous blocks, none of these are going to help unless he has a change of heart. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the best thing would be for the editors he has history with to keep off of his talk page and try to avoid commenting on him where possible, and to see if he can be gently persuaded to focus his arguments around content - I have left a note on his talk page encouraging him to read WP:NOSPADE, and to be honest, I feel it's an essay that everyone should read in situations like this. I don't think it can be denied that some of the comments made towards him have the effect of provoking him, even if this may often be inadvertent. Blocking is very much a last resort, and I do believe that DG genuinely wants to improve the encyclopedia and is capable of doing so provided everybody disengages a bit. Brilliantine (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree that those around DG are hardly blameless... Dream, Giano, and Sceptre have all violated policy and guidelines before (to various degrees), but I don't think anyone can question they are/have been committed to the project. Giving everyone some room to breath might be the best way to deal with these kinds of editors. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Doug) I agree (and have said above) that I think a one-week block is the way to go right now. Then if DreamGuy would clean up his talkpage, acknowledge the ArbCom restrictions and promise to do better in the future, the block could be lifted early. If not, it would be left in place. Either way, it would be block #3 of 5, towards the one-year block (if he continues to disrupt), per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2#Enforcement. --Elonka 17:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, your conduct is unbecoming. You need to stop dispensing "advice" about DreamGuy in this inappropriate venue. If you won't, then minimal civility demands that you at least reply to my protest above, and give some reason for thinking you're entitled to go on like this. Bishonen | talk 18:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC).

Perhaps the both of you - who seem unable to tolerate the contributions of the other - could withdraw from here, as your personal difficulties with each other are tangential to the discussion here. The subject of this complaint might well be laughing his ass off whilst you two argue this section into distraction. I myself have said what I think, and am withdrawing, unless addressed personally. - Arcayne () 16:31, September 3, 2008 (UTC)

What's missing from this discussion as always is context. Dreamguy's WP:OWN comment came after PmAnderson baited DM on the talkpage about his "notorious intemperan", while the "POV-pushing" comment which Akhileus later reported came after this patronizing comment from him.

What concerns me most about this report is that it appears there are still some folks who are prepared to use the most minor incidents to try and get rid of someone with whom they disagree. That is not what AE exists for, that is called gaming the system and it is surely behaviour that should not be encouraged. Instead of sanctioning Dreamguy, perhaps it's time we started considering sanctions against people who make frivolous reports like this as in my opinion they are far more disruptive—in terms of the time and energy wasted by the community—than anything the defendant has been accused of here. Gatoclass (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As a sitting arbitrator I prefer not to comment on threads on this board, because disputes here sometimes return to the Arbitration Committee and I then want to look at them with an open mind. However, I note that the challenged edits here are 6 days old, and DreamGuy has done little editing since then. Given that there is not a clear consensus for enforcement, it strikes me that this thread could best be closed as stale, with a general request for civility and decorum from all editors on the article in question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What erks me is that DreamGuy has not apologised for overstepping the mark, despite plenty of opportunity to. This discussion is older than it could have been, because I took the time to try to discuss it on the users talk page rather than bringing it here. I wouldnt have brought the matter here if the responses I had received indicated that there was a willingness to accept that the accusations made were not appropriate. John Vandenberg 10:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Either way it seems obvious that this thread is not helping with DG. I suggest we close and pursue discussion at other channels, if needed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 12:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Jewish Internet Defense Fund

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

User:Einsteindonut warned, and under mentorship. Jehochman 07:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It'd be great if an uninvolved admin could check out the statements of Einsteindonut. This user says that CJCurrie "He has such an obvious anti-Israel agenda on Misplaced Pages" and links to a website attacking Currie. He says explicitly that he will ignore cautions, e.g. to focus on content not contributors. He readily accuses other editors of bad faith ("you inspiring an edit war") and act belligerently ("Since Shabazz essentially told me to get lost, I think I'm going to stick around and get LOUDER. Also, I'm going to get many more of my friends (with whom I do respect and with whom have NOBLE intentions) to start getting involved---because this is F'in ridiculous.") Also states that he does not AGF ("As far as "assume good faith" - I do not, especially when someone honors Malik Shabazz with their name....)

I have already cautioned people on the Talk page about the ArbCom discretionary sanctions for I-P articles and put a specific note on Einsteindonut's Talk page. I'd recommend a significantly firmer response and would like an uninvolved editor to intercede. Thanks very much. HG | Talk 02:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As of about two hours ago, it looks like User:Einsteindonut is being mentored by Michael Safyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and that the mentor is laying down the rules. I am going to leave both parties a note about this thread. If the situation gets out of hand the mentor, or any other editor, can contact me. We should give mentoring a chance before blocking. Jehochman 05:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have also provided a standard WP:ARBPIA warning. Jehochman 05:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, thank you very much for your responsiveness. Take care, HG | Talk 07:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)