Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive126

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Arbitration enforcement archives
1234567891011121314151617181920
2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
321322323324325326327328329330331332

Paul Magnussen, Sirswindon, and InigmaMan[edit]

Three editors have been notified of the discretionary sanctions under the Race and intelligence Arbcom case, due to activities at the Hans Eysenck article.. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Request concerning Paul Magnussen, Sirswindon, and InigmaMan[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Tijfo098 (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested

I'm filing this as a single request because there is little difference in their behavior and position. In some cases, one editor deletes content and another from this group then presents long argumentation in support of deletion on the talk page.

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
R&I discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

The case comes down to removal of material cited from secondary, academic sources, followed by long diatribes posted on the talk page which seldom address any particular content, except in their arbitrary conclusion(s). I invite admin to read the whole talk page, but here are some examples:

User:Paul Magnussen:

  1. [1] block-delete with edit summary "Removing unreferenced POV material" (which was not unreferenced) supported by the following line of argumentation:
  2. Furthermore, the terms "extreme right" and "extreme left" have become so confused and emotionally loaded and to become effectively meaningless.
  3. 'Right' (in this sense) is a POV term, now reduced to little more than a term of abuse
  4. his politics are irrelevant as what he had for breakfast
  5. I haven't noticed you leaping up and down about Leon Kamin or Stephen Jay Gould, whose politics apparently did dictate their science…
  6. Supposing that your characterisation of these publications is correct and that Prof. Eysenck did actually write for them (as opposed to allowing publication of previously-written material), have you considered the possibility that he would write for anyone who paid his fee? Apparently not.
  7. What would you say the are characteristics of the Extreme Right? Beating up the opposition, refusing to allow them to speak, threatening their children?
  8. His scientific views are not in dispute. All that's been produced on his political views is name-calling and unsupported inference.
  9. calling anyone "right-wing" is POV ipso facto.
  10. You said (above) that we don't define terms. Could you tell me where to find the definitions we're using for "far right" and/or "extreme right"? They seem to me to be weasel words — specifically, just vague terms of abuse.
  11. [2] Another removal of content, presumably explained by:
  12. 6Kb of text. Apparently, the argument is that although Eysenck has written several books about the genetics-intelligence link, we can't exemplify or discuss their content in his biography, even when secondary sources do that. Go figure. This long post also appears to be written with the intent to support the deletion of material performed by Sirswindon in diff #8 below.

User:Sirswindon:

  1. [3] Deletion of material based on secondary sources as "hearsay"
  2. [4] repeat
  3. [5] claims the ref fails WP:V Text in original (German) is "In der April-Ausgabe der rechtsextremen Nationalzeitung von 1990 schreibt Eysenck einen Artikel, in dem er Sigmund Freud der Verschlagenheit und mangelnder Aufrichtigkeit zeiht, wobei zugleich auf Freuds jüdische Herkunft verwiesen wird."
  4. [6] Pure denialism or more sophistry? You decide. Perhaps the author-publisher relationship is not a relationship.
  5. [7] Appeals to Wikipedia definition of right-wing, just like the SPA InigmaMan (see its own section below).
  6. [8] False dichotomy: "All or None".
  7. [9] Advances his own prophecy.
  8. [10] Deletes content claiming it's not in the source. Quote given here. Offered chance to self-revert there too. Not taken insofar.

User:InigmaMan (a WP:SPA):

  1. [11] "Eysenck did not publish articles, the newspaper published them"
  2. [12] Red herring. The article at the time did no say Eysenck was Far-right. It said "He wrote the preface to the book "Das unvergängliche Erbe" by Pierre Krebs, a far-right French writer, which was published by Krebs' Thule-Seminar.[32]"
  3. [13] Quotes the Wikipedia article on far-right as an WP:OR argument to disprove what the sources said.
  4. [14] Continues the same argument.

-- Tijfo098 (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Sirswindon continues:

  1. [15] deletes the passage again
  2. [16] explained by my IQ somehow?

-- Tijfo098 (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it keeps going:

  1. [17] The "newspaper" in question is National Zeitung. (Note that the Wikipedia article on it is pretty bad. Read the source in further reading if google lets you. I didn't have time to expand it insofar.) Tijfo098 (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. [18] The song and dance continues. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. [19] deletes again material supported from web-available, academic secondary source. No evidence that he tried to verify the primary source (National Zeitung), even though the secondary source cites a precise issue (see quote above). This is clearly an abuse of the Arbitration findings: "Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." There is no indication here that the primary source is miscited or misinterpreted; the author of the secondary source, de:Siegfried Jäger is a linguist specializing in pragmatics, (in critical discourse analysis to be more precise)—it's hard to think of more qualified secondary source for text analysis. In a similar case where this type of presumption of guilt against the same secondary source was raised, it proved to be unfounded; see the long discussion about the Krebs preface, with quote from the original here. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. [20] And InigmaMan resurfaces (contrary to the admin assertion below that he is inactive) and with an assertion that could be construed as a WP:BLP violation by comparing a (living) author with the Nazis without any evidence and a WP:CIVIL violation by suggesting that those citing secondary sources are akin to Nazi followers. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some snippets from Cas Mudde on the DNZ
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


That's the reliable newspaper in which everyone publishes and which has nothing to do with the extreme right (according to some Wikipedia editors, anyway.) despite what secondary sources say about it. But of course, sources which say it's an extreme right newspaper when discussing Eysenck's publications in it (a series of articles on race and intelligence in 1985 and an article on Freud in 1990) are just spouting labels (again according to some Wikipedia editors, which seem to have found endorsement by an admin below.) Tijfo098 (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if I'm allowed one final rant here, Paul Magnussen seems well-versed in the content of Eysenck's books (he quoted from one in his first substantive edit to the page in 2006), [21], but apparently not so aware of book reviews or more controversial passages from the same book he quoted: [22]. I'll let you judge if his long-term influence on this article has been beneficial or not. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston's "Those who believe that Eysenck held far-right political views would be on safer ground if they can quote him expressing such views. His strong opposition to Nazism is hard to reconcile with some of the criticism." Quotes were given on the talk page (accompanied by commentary from secondary sources.) Our articles on GRECE and Nouvelle Droite aren't great. (Compare our article on GRECE with [23] for instance.) Their ideology, at least nominally rejects authoritarianism and providential figures (like Hitler) but still embraces quite a few other ideas that the Nazis liked, some form Indo-European superiority, neo-paganism as a rejection of the Jewish-contaminated Christianity, etc. Thule-Seminar doesn't have "Thule" in it for running out of vocabulary. The ND/GRECE is classified as far right by most secondary sources I saw. And the accusations against Eysenck center on his relation with GRECE (they published a book of his in France, he wrote a preface for another, and was on some Committee of theirs), the DVU (articles published in National Zeitung) and less with the National Front (UK) (the relation was less direct, they liked his books and published and interview with him for which Eysenck provided a non-denial denial--an interesting, but too long of a story to recount here. By the way, the National Front managed to be far right while hating Hitler at the same time. The DVU also condemns Hitler (for ruining Germany, anyway).) It's actually possible to have such ideas and be quite successful even in the US; see Roger Pearson (anthropologist) for whom Eysenck wrote an introduction for one of his books. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Paul Magnussen, Sirswindon, and InigmaMan[edit]

Statement by Paul Magnussen, Sirswindon, and InigmaMan[edit]

Paul Magnussen[edit]

Not much to add. I'm fairly familiar with Eysenck's work. I've tried to keep the article in line with Wikipedia principles, notably Reliable Sources and no POV material. Distortions of fact and name-calling are (it seems to me) not Reliable.

As secondary objective, I've also tried to keep the article balanced and to an appropriate size.

Of course, I'm not saying I haven't made any mistakes, although I've tried not to. Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should also add that I am not a sock-puppet: this is my real name, and I can provide evidence of this should it be required. Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Please can someone explain why what was put in the article about Freud relates to the subject of this section of the article: In the National Zeitung he reproached Sigmund Freud for alleged trickiness and lack of frankness by reference to Freud's Jewish background.[1] -- Sirswindon (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2012

  1. ^ Leonie Knebel and Pit Marquardt (2012). "Vom Versuch, die Ungleichwertigkeit von Menschen zu beweisen". In Michael Haller and Martin Niggeschmidt (ed.). Der Mythos vom Niedergang der Intelligenz: Von Galton zu Sarrazin: Die Denkmuster und Denkfehler der Eugenik. Springer DE. p. 104. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-94341-1_6. ISBN 978-3-531-18447-0.

Comments by others about the request concerning Paul Magnussen, Sirswindon, and InigmaMan[edit]

Hi, Im also involved in this discussion. I'm fully agree with user Tijfo098! If you want an overview about the issue see: here. Please also have a look at this ANI. --WSC ® 10:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This appears to be a case of tag teaming to remove properly sourced material from the biography of Eysenck for spurious reasons. Mathsci (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(A second apparently unrelated group of editors (YvelinesFrance, Zeromus1 and The Devil's Advocate) appears to be tag teaming on Talk:Race and intelligence. Similar issues of meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry apply there. The first two named accounts seem to have resonances with previously site-banned or topic-banned editors.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathsci (talk • contribs)

YvelinesFrance, Zeromus1 appear to me to be the same editor (and if I'm not mistaken, when this possibility was raised on the Race and Intelligence talk page the response was the standard "why are you asking this, let's argue about other stuff instead", rather than a denial. There was another account with similar interests around but there's so many sock puppets on this article and topic area that I've gotten lost and I'm too lazy right now to go digging again. Volunteer Marek  05:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What completely spurious claims. Volunteer Marek accuses of sock-puppetry anyone who doesn't think the exact same way he does. YvelinesFrance (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Math, please do not accuse me of tag-teaming or meat-puppetry unless you can provide strong evidence for such a claim.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Devil's Advocate should address me as "Mathsci", not by a kindergarten shortening. His edits do appear to be supporting the tendentious edits of YvelinesFrance. Those edits are as problematic as were those of TrevelyanL85A2, now indefinitely blocked. Here is an example,[24][25] just one amongst many. The Devil's Advocate continues to ignore the advice of senior administrators [26] and arbitrators.[27] He acted as a proxy (sometimes called a "meatpuppet") for the DeviantArt team for close on two months, during which time he was in contact with at least one of them off-wiki. How much has changed? Mathsci (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That comment from France was clearly inappropriate, but I am not sure what it has to do with me. I wasn't even aware of that until you mentioned it. As to the other stuff, would you please leave me alone? You keep showing up at noticeboards to go after me and it is becoming quite tiresome. I wasn't even mentioned here until you showed up and this case had nothing to do with the dispute on the race and intelligence article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The two sets of events both touch WP:ARBR&I and are similar, which is why they have both been mentioned here. The Devil's Advocate chose to position himself in this particular topic area in July and a large number of his edits were geared to seeking sanctions on me while encouraging and acting as apologist for an attack-only account. In those circumstances it is hard to understand why he is now playing the victim. But, much worse than that, he has chosen to misrepresen my edits in a completely unethical way. A 7 year old child could look through my recent edits and, without guidance from an adult, deduce that I have just undergone major emergency heart surgery. I have not been editing wikipedia. It is time for The Devil's Advocate to take a reality check: he should look at the editing history of YvelinesFrance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and see why there is a general problematic pattern. The same applies to Zeromus1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), starting with his very first edit. Mathsci (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what you think was misrepresenting your edits. You have been repeatedly showing up at noticeboards to push for action against me and you have been using pretty much the same arguments you are using here, while I only ever suggested that you be admonished for your misconduct in a single discussion about a specific case. Just because health concerns have meant you have not been able to go after me recently does not mean it is a misrepresentation to say you have been doing that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Devil's Advocate has just been told that I am recovering from major open heart surgery. Despite that, he is still attempting to suggest something completely different, another of his grotesque conpiracy theories, in direct contradiction with my unfortunate real life circumstances. He is editing unethically as part of some kind of morbid WP:GAME. Captain Occam was site-banned for trying to cast doubt on the serious medical condition of Orangemarlin. The Devil's Advocate is doing the same with me and I would not be surprised if he also finds himself indefinitely site-banned as a consequence. His record in WP:ARBR&I has been appalling (harassment, enabling of site-banned and topic-banned users, wikilawyering with arbitrators). With these wholly unethical suggestions, he has now crossed a line, whether his editing was the original cause of this report or not. Mathsci (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you talking about? I don't see how you could reasonably interpret my comments that way.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole things smacks of an attempt to silence disagreeable users. It's funny that when the other side of the debate 'tag teams' nothing is claimed, however when a few editors with contrarian opinions appear, suddenly it's a conspiracy. Hopefully this is thrown out. Completely meritless. YvelinesFrance (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's how this topic area has been for a long time now. As soon as one set of sock/meat puppets gets banned, the users involved just turn around and create another set. And over and over and over again. I notice you're not even bothering to deny your connections to Zeromus1 (or whatever other accounts there might be). Volunteer Marek  23:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a completely unfounded claim with no evidence. There is no reason for me to even refute such ad hominem attacks. YvelinesFrance (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, that is a question for SPI, not AE.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question of neat sourceswork. First the sources been doubt. Some of the sources I presented were in german. It's okay for me to doubt them. But they don't even doubted the german sources. They claimed all sources estimated Eysenck as far-right supporter, and there are several sources how do that, are not reliable. A reproach beyond good and evil. When other authors supported the sources they begin to downplay the statements of the sources. The peak of this activities was to change the heading from "Alleged relationships with far right groups" to "Relationship with right-wing groups". A description was not supported by only one single source. The argumentation is nothing but sophistry. If you really want to understand theirs procedure, you have to read the hole talk-page. It begins with the blanket denying of ALL sources to admire in archive of the talk-page. And ends with the downplaying of statements of these and other sources.

My favorite counterargument is: "I personally knew Eysenck for over 40 years," (but never take notic that he supported far-right groups), by user sirswindon.

The several sources make a clear statement about Eysenck and the far-right. Of course you can dabate specific statements in the text of the article. But you can't debate the essence of the sources. That's the point a POV-War begins and the balance of our article is endangered. Especially in this issue (race & intelligence).

Of course it's possible to have a debatte for the next years till one side showes signs of fatigue or give up. But it would be better to have a serious discussion about facts and not about (I personally know Eysenck for 40 y. and I know better than those socialist sources) fiction. It's possible to have a sources-based discussion. If anybody wants to. --WSC ® 06:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Appeal against thread hijacking. I understand there is a dispute on another R&I article, but it doesn't seem to (currently) involve any of the editors involved in the Eysenck article (unless someone has discovered who InigmaMan is, but I haven't seen that above). I suggest that a different report be filed about the YvelinesFrance, Zeromus1 and The Devil's Advocate issue. Thanks. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair enough. The Devil's Advocate did not like my parenthetic remark. Mathsci (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Paul Magnussen, Sirswindon, and InigmaMan[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • At the moment I don't see anything that AE should do. InigmaMan is an SPA and might be a sock, but has not edited Wikipedia since 2 October. On 15 October there was almost an edit war between Tjfo098 and Sirswindon regarding inclusion of a quote from Barnett, but that now seems to have quiesced. I was expecting to see a terrible article that was full of charges and countercharges, given the tendency of R&I matters to unhinge people's judgment. But now that I actually look at the Hans Eysenck article I feel it is reasonably balanced. It gives a fair hearing to some views of Eysenck that appear to be out of the mainstream. I suggest that this AE request be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an SPI report? T. Canens (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm withdrawing my opinion that InigmaMan could be a sock, after reviewing his contributions. The net effect of InigmaMan seemed to be to make the article slightly more balanced. Our readers can still make up their own minds whether to condemn Eysenck for the company that he kept. It's not unheard of for someone to be so convinced of their own rectitude that they don't care how something looks to others. (E.g. Eysenck secretly taking funds from tobacco companies: "As long as somebody pays for the research I don't care who it is.") Those who believe that Eysenck held far-right political views would be on safer ground if they can quote him expressing such views. His strong opposition to Nazism is hard to reconcile with some of the criticism. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sirswindon indicates that he knew Hans Eysenck personally for forty years. He made one comment suggesting he intends to edit war. He should not be encouraged to rely on his personal knowledge of Eysenck when editing this article, as opposed to what reliable sources have to say. I left a note for him recommending that he formally agree to accept editor consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless there is objection, I'm planning to close this in the next 24 hours with a notice to both Sirswindon and Paul Magnussen of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBR&I. EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since InigmaMan has returned from inactivity to comment at Talk:Hans Eysenck on October 25 I'm now planning to notify him as well. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Wee Curry Monster[edit]

The appeal is successful. The May 2011 restriction of four editors under the Gibraltar case has been lifted on a trial basis. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user
Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Wee Curry Monster talk 13:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sanction being appealed
Restrictions on editing Gibraltar articles at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Sanctions
Administrator imposing the sanction
Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
[28]

Statement by Wee Curry Monster[edit]

This sanction has been in place for over a year, the RFC requested has never happened. User:Imalbornoz and User:Richard Keatinge were simply reverting edits with no real rationale. User:Imalbornoz the subject of the AE complaint has made no substantive edit on wikipedia since. The restriction is moot anyway as during the intervening period other editors have re-added material removed by User:Imalbornoz concerning signficant historical events in Gibraltar. I have a number of articles in my sandpit for over a year that I couldn't publish because of this restriction. I would like this to be lifted please.

I would like to draw attention to an issue in the past with FPaS. Several years ago, FPaS removed a number of fair use images on Falklands articles, then declared them orphaned and deleted them as a speedy deletion. During the subsequent deletion review, his behaviour led to an RFC/U in which I participated. Ever since, whenever I have posted at WP:ANI or other forum, he has proposed a sanction against me. I am now formally requesting an interaction ban with FPaS, as I firmly believe he is abusing his admin powers.
I also object in the strongest terms to his accusation of POV editing, any comments on my editing by neutral bystanders has always been in the affirmative that it conforms to a NPOV. Again I ask how as I did at the ANI he refers to, how you're supposed to deal with editors who simply revert you without any real valid reason, whilst they are editing for POV reasons or for example, by their own admission for a "laugh and a giggle", [29]. Really I would like some direction as to how you're supposed to deal with an editor who is reverting you simply because it amuses them.
Again I feel I am forced to comment on the original reason for my being sanctioned at arbcom. I disclosed then that I suffer from PTSD and that in the period leading up to the arbcom case I was in a bad way mentally. I was sanctioned for violations of WP:CIVIL, I have never shrank from the fact my conduct was unacceptable, it was recognised as uncharacteristic, I apologised for it sincerely but it seems that contrary to WP:CIVIL it is regularly dragged up again and again as a reason to label me as a problem. Really the section on WP:CIVIL that suggests past conduct shouldn't be raked up is a waste of time, its never followed.
Further please refer to the ANI discussion referred to by FPaS, who without looking immediately proposed a sanction against me (a recurring theme), it was commented there that I had remained civil at all times, despite extreme provocation and none of the behaviour that led to my sanction was repeated. I didn't retire to avoid a sanction, nor do I intend to make a return. My only intention is to publish a backlog of articles and then I don't know. But I have no intention to contribute at my previous level. As I said when I retired, I'm simply tired of the fact that when you're an editor trying to edit in accordance with wikipedia's core values, confronted by editors seeking to use wikipedia as a platform to advance an agenda, you get no backing whatsoever and even if you do follow policy, it is recognised you've followed policy, someone always finds a reason to propose a sanction. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Ed, I don't know how many ways I can say this. It was found at arbcom I'd been uncivil, I never shrank from the fact that my conduct for a period was uncivil. I've apologised for it repeatedly and it hasn't been repeated and pretty much everyone would agree it was uncharacteristic. Yet its still being brought up and flung in my face again and again and again. At the recent ANI thread FPaS refers to, it was actually commented that I remained civil in spite of provocation and I'd followed WP:DR. WP:CIVIL states It is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Why am I still being sanctioned for uncharacteristic behaviour from 3 years ago that has not been repeated in 3 years?
However, to amplify my comment. No there is no heat, as you put it, from my side. The content I proposed was implemented by other editors soon after this sanction was enacted. Further given the past conduct of a certain editor, if I have to gain his agreement to publish anything it will never be published as he simply will not agree to anything I propose.
I do consider an underlying issue was never addressed, amplified with supporting diffs below from the earlier AE. But please note I'm not dwelling on this, I moved on and edited elsewhere and I co-operated with Richard as he points out here. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, in the ANI case you refer to, I remained civil and followed WP:DR as you are supposed to. I asked then how else it could have been handled and no one can answer me. If there is a problem with my editing, you can easily re-impose the sanction. All I wish to do is publish whats in my sandpit and quit. Many reasons, one being I'm simply tired of being stigmatised for an episode of mental illness long ago. This ceased to be preventative a long time ago. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I have no real desire to edit at the moment. I have a number of complete articles in my sandpit area I wish to publish. The retired banner is because I have effectively retired. I only intend to publish and quit, if I do return to editing you have my word I will drop you a line so you may, if you wish, monitor that I keep my word to remain civil. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hatted to avoid swamping this request
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


The problem was editors refused to seriously address a content proposal and constantly made provocative accusations against other editors (amplified below) instead. If whilst attempting to expand a work, it is constantly reverted whilst in progress how is any editor supposed to reason with someone behaving unreasonably? How can you have a discussion when they refuse to discuss and simply parrot the same bad faith comment.

When I attempted to raise this at WP:AE, the previous conduct I mention above was raised repeatedly as a smokescreen, at WP:ANI reams of tendentious argument were introduced as a smokescreen and RFC were filibustered into oblivion.

Remarks related to "British Embarassment" at the events of 1704[edit]

As a demonstration of bad faith, it was regularly trotted out that the British are embarassed by historic events and suppress or ignore what happened. This was a recurring statement [30],[31],[32] despite rebuttals from literature [33] and [34]. It was used to accuse editors of suppressing information [35].


Although sourced as the opinion of Garret(1939), a cursory examination of the literature shows it to be untrue. The events are described accurately in Hills (1974), Bradford (1971), Francis (1975), Jackson (1990), Andrews (1958) and Garratt (1939). In 1845, Ayala a Spanish work is translated verbatim into English by T.James (1845) note also Sayer (1862), Martin (1887), Drinkwater (1824). Admiral Byng and Reverend Pocock wrote detailed eye witness accounts from a personal perspective.

Aside from anything else the 70 yr old opinion of an author has no bearing on a content discussion and most certainly should never be used to impugn other editors. It was repeatedly.

Accusations of removal of facts[edit]

[36] Imalbornoz alleged (repeatedly) removal of facts. The statement does not reflect any proposed edit. See User:Wee Curry Monster/Gibraltar NPOVN which includes every piece of information demanded.

Disruption of RFC and Notice Boards[edit]

Outside opinion was deterred by walls of text and raising multiple irrelevant issues.

E.g. during mediation I made a comment about the multiple issues in the way an edit was being formulated [37].

A) Part of which was related to WP:RS using Google Snippets B) part was related to WP:OR in which a conclusion was synthesised from certain facts.

I raised this at WP:NORN at the request of the mediator User:Lord Roem [38]. Rather than raising the issue focussed and relevant to this noticeboard, Imalbornoz raised multiple issues that were not pertinent to that discussion [39].

As discussion diverted from the issue relevant to the noticeboard I asked a focussed question for outside opinion [[40], Richard immediately followed this by again raising matters that were irrelevant [41].

RFC were disrupted [42]. Imalbornoz posted a wall of text, then Richard completely hijacked it and rewrote it [43] so it did not address any of the issues raised.

Sourcing[edit]

The principal sources named for edits was Hills and Jackson, apparently reasonable, both are well-referenced and well regarded reliable sources but Imalbornoz had neither source Regarding Jackson and Hills, I wish I had access to the books. I think Ecemaml has one or both. I think I'll ask him. Basically he had no access to the source he quoted and when challenged about weight relied on a 3rd party for selective quotes.

His approach was to basically write an edit then look for a supporting cite. He asks another editor to email him selected scans to support the edit he wishes to make. [44] translation [45]. He continues to claim he can establish WP:DUE without recourse to sources and on the basis he has a 3rd party to provide quotes claims access to the sources [46].

Without access to reliable sources, he was reduced to looking for scraps of information in Google Snippets to source his edits. A) This is not considered a reliable means of sourcing and B) it produces misleading results. An example, he cited Andrews p.54 as proving the establishment of de facto control shortly after the capture. I have the book and pointed out this chapter is about a different period. He nontheless continued to make the claim [47] "You say, for example that Allen talks about the period after Utrecht (1713)... when he is mentioning Shrimpton, who was governor from 1704 to 1707!!!" This finally gave me the clue he'd used snippets [48]. Shrimpton was indeed Governor from 1704-1707, the problem is that quote relates to the corruption of the early Governors post-Utrecht citing that it started with Shrimpton.

Imalbornoz frequently posted this table [49], when I looked more closely I found he had been misrepresenting his sources see this table [50]. If you check this link [51] and look at the article history (Tab on the LHS) it was edited shortly before Imalbornoz first published this table converting British Overseas Territory to British Colony.

"Bibliometry"[edit]

What Richard termed "ingenious Bibliometry" wasa recurring feature of discussions explained here [52]. This Bibliometry was used to construct a metric used to assert a claim that other editors were giving weight to factors of less significance. He refuses to ackowledge the flaws in the argument, which is at best simply an example of Confirmation Bias due to the way he structured his searches, and instead asserted that other editors are unreasonably giving weight to factors of less significance more weight (eg the Great Siege of Gibraltar, the Battle of Trafalgar or even Gibraltar's significant role in WW2. He removed the Great Siege of Gibraltar and the Battle of Trafalgar as trivia.

In any case, hit counts in Google searches are not a reliable indicator of weight see WP:Google searches and numbers, I want to quote the first paragraph.


This so-called Bibliometry is not a substitute for reliable sources in establishing WP:DUE but that is precisely how it is argued. Worse it is used to impugn editors by claiming they give undue weight to facts of "less signifiance" see [53].

Laugh and a Giggle[edit]

[54] I repeatedly to find a compromise edit acceptable to all, in fact I've compromised so many times that basically I gave in and included every piece of content demanded by Richard and Imalbornoz. They reverted any content suggestion I made. I find it extraordinary that he can openly state he opposed my content suggestions not for any lack of merit but rather it amused him.

Misrepresentation[edit]

There are numerous examples of Imalbornoz misrepresenting a position held by an editor. He claimed I edited to insert this:


I never did and TBH I'm not sure of the editor who did or the source they used.

Cherry Picking[edit]

Imalbornoz edited to add "in 1711 the British government covertly ordered the British Gibraltar governor, Thomas Stanwix, to expel any foreign (not British) troops in order to render the place "absolutely in the Queen's power".[1]"

Would you not agree it would be signficant to note that those covert orders were never acted upon and that Dutch troops remained until 1713?

Final Comments[edit]

How can editors draw conclusions and make edits without access to the full text? How can WP:DUE be established without recourse to the full text? On one hand you had editors arguing weight based on researching the subject in mutiple sources and producing an edit based on that research and supporting it with inline cites and extensive quotes. On the other you had editors who start with a premise, look for cites to support it and then ignore and veto content suggestions that attempt to redress the very real problems with WP:NPOV.

This book published by Spain under the dictatorship of General Franco. Spain. Minister of Foreign Affairs (1965). A red book on Gibraltar. author. Retrieved 2 February 2011. "It is also well known that the inhabitants of the City of Gibraltar were driven out and their houses ransacked".

There are a range of opionions expressed in the literature to explain why the Spanish population left, not least of which is a letter from the population to Philip V that explains they left because of their loyalty to the Spanish crown and refusal to live under Hapsburg rule. The article as edited by Imalbornoz contained only the opinion from the red book as advanced by Spain in pursuit of its modern sovereignty claim; it doesn't reflect the range of opinion in the historical literature.

When Imalbornoz was topic banned the problems with NPOV ended shortly after.

Statement by Timotheus Canens[edit]

My tentative view is that a trial lifting is probably appropriate. With the benefit of hindsight, we probably should have simply directed the opening of an RFC. T. Canens (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unarchived. T. Canens (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Richard Keatinge[edit]

I'd originally only edited in Gibraltar to make a quick and simple response to a RfC. After the truly immense waste of time involved in arguing a fairly straightforward point, I felt my time was better spent on other subjects. I didn't get around to launching the binding RfC though I'd probably put in at least a brief response if anyone feels like organizing one, and I would suggest that such an RfC might be a good precondition for lifting the sanctions. Wee Curry Monster and I have managed to work constructively together in the interim and come up with a good-quality result, if that helps anyone's decision. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Wee Curry Monster[edit]

  • It seems to be a case of "forgotten prisoner". Tijfo098 (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm skeptical. The the situation that triggered the original sanction (see AE thread from May 2011) was characterized by apparent tendentious editing from both sides, according to the analyses of several observers at the time. I see little or nothing in WCM's appeal about acknowledging his own responsibility for the conflict and pledging a change of course; all he's saying is essentially that the other side was wrong all the time and he just wants to go back to editing the way he did. Moreover, WCM just narrowly escaped another topic ban on his other big POV focus area, the Falklands, a couple of weeks ago, by "retiring" in the face of the impending sanction [55] (but coming back two weeks later when the waters were calmer). In that very similar situation he vociferously refused to see any wrong in his own editing, and showed a tendency of imputing criticism against himself to personal motives of those who were criticising him ([56], and I have no doubt he will do that now too.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Tijfo098. Given it has been a year, couldn't this be lifed and allow the editor to contribute again? Certainly if this is to make a point, that point has been well made by now. Thanks. Bearpatch (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has a previous disagreement with User:Wee Curry Monster which seems to have spilled over in his inappropriate comments at article Talk pages,[[57]]|here]] the ANI [[58]] and now here. He had been asked to step away from the former ANI because, even before any discussion began, he interjected himself asking for sanctions on Wee which made his intentions immediately suspect to this veteran editor. I searched and found that former interaction and is mentioned in Wee's statement above. He did not step away which was unfortunate. I had never seen that before. Wee is one of the best content editors at Wikipedia, and if he has had some personal problems he has admitted them and overcome them. We simply cannot afford to keep losing good content editors. Wikipedia is about giving people another chance when they have shown integrity to admit shortcomings and a willingness to change. There is no doubt that Wee deserves another chance. Mugginsx (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Wee Curry Monster[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The Gibraltar restriction being appealed by Wee Curry Monster is from May, 2011. That restriction also limited Imalbornoz, Pfainuk (now Kahastok) and Richard Keatinge. I have notified the other editors so they have a chance to respond here. WCM states above that "User:Imalbornoz and User:Richard Keatinge were simply reverting edits with no real rationale". This suggests to me that some of the heat of the original dispute may still survive. If so we should check carefully to see how things stand now. WCM mentioned he has some sandbox material that he would like to check in, and I'd be interested to know what he has in mind. Even under restriction, he can still propose those changes on Talk. (See the restriction for details). I suggest the admin who closes this should wait and see if the others want to comment. If there is still a live dispute we might consider advising the editors to go forward with the proposed RfC and get it over with, before lifting the restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WCM's further explanation (above) is helpful. I remain concerned about his participation in the recent Falklands dispute (see a link provided by FP), which suggests he may find himself losing his temper on Gibraltar once again. It would help bring this to a close if WCM would sketch out the type of changes he is hoping to make at Gibraltar once the restriction is lifted. He can make a proposal at Talk:Gibraltar and link to it from here if it is too lengthy. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WCM, thanks for your further comment. If you want to resume the (possibly difficult) work at Gibraltar, I'm trying to reconcile that with the 'Retired' banner on your user talk. Can you explain? My guess is that your retirement is in the face of what you perceive to be uninformed opposition. Certainly you have a right to retire, and the opposition may well be uninformed, but the total effect of your statements is unclear. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing. The May, 2011 restriction imposed by T. Canens under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar against Wee Curry Monster, Richard Keatinge, Pfainuk (now Kahastok) and Imalbornoz is lifted on a trial basis. If the mid-2011 problems resume, any admin may reimpose the restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iadrian yu[edit]

No action taken. See comments in the closure. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Iadrian yu[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Nmate (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Iadrian yu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
[59]
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. [60] Explanation: Recently, the user lodged a request for arbitration against me in which I was accused of making personal attacks, battleground behavior, edit warring raised to a level that is amount to having an arbitration case against me, and doing OR. On 16:33, 11 October 2012, It was rejected. Admin EdJohnston said: Don't see anything here. It's hard to view this as a good-faith report.13:07, 11 October 2012
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. Warned on 27 August 2010 by Stifle (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Shortly after his frivilous request for arbitration against me had been rejected, Iadrian yu arrived at several articles he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before. It is clear that Iadrian yu follows my edits around and tries to provoke confrontations and edit wars.

See timeline:


  1. 17:09, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  2. 17:11, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  3. 17:11, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  4. 17:13, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  5. 17:14, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  6. 17:15, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  7. 17:16, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  8. 18:12, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  9. 18:13, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  10. 18:13, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  11. 18:13, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  12. 18:13, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  13. 18:13, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  14. 18:14, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  15. 18:14, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  16. 18:14, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  17. 18:14, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  18. 18:16, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  19. 18:16, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  20. 18:16, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  21. 18:16, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  22. 18:17, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  23. 18:17, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  24. 18:18, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  25. 18:28, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  26. 18:29, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  27. 18:29, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.
  28. 18:29, 11 October 2012 Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before.

After having exhibited a strong opinion on Hungarians [61] , which is compatible with what various right wing organizations claim in Romania like Noua Dreaptă, I felt the need to report Iadrian yu to WP AE in 2010. It did not result in him being sanctioned, because it requires a preliminary notice of Digwuren upon which the sanction is based. Instead, the administrators decided to deliver him an ‎AE warning on his talk page.


Being worried about saddling himself with longer blocks, he learned from the lesson afterwards: it isn't wise to reveal his opinion on Hungarians in Wikipedia. However, Iadrian yu meanwhile became increasingly busy shopping for blocks against my person. The user makes friviluous reports against me using the latest edits of mine with outright false misrepresentations and the diffs simply can't support what he claims they show which indicates a general battleground attitude on his part. Shortly after his frivilous request for AE against me had been rejected, Iadrian yu again began following me to articles he had never edited before solely to revert my edits. In light of this, I do not think that it is a content dispute which is possible to resolve over talk page discussions.


I think that accusing anybody of battleground behaviour, making personal attacks and disruptive editing in a request for arbitration without any evidence really falls under WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND (See: 16:33, 11 October 2012). Shortly after his frivilous request for arbitration against me had been rejected, this user tried to provoke confrontations and edit wars by following me to 28 articles he had never edited before. I think that this pattern of behavior constitutes WP:HARASSMENT.

To Iadrian yu

it is a plain nonsense. What does it mean "Nmate resumed our dispute"? It was Iadrian yu who filled a frivilous RFA against me; most of the diffs he presented in the report did not even concern him any way. Shortly after his frivilous RFA had been closed, Iadrian yu followed me to 28 articles he had never edited before to partially revert me. It is hardly possible to take as a content dispute. In his frivilous RFA, Iadrian yu accused me of various things without any evidence that falls under WP:NPA and WP:HARASSMENT.

Then I reverted a message of Iadrian yu posted on User:Koertefa's talk page because it concerned me in a highly insulting way:
Don`t get this the wrong way but I am just curious. Did you checked the diffs I provided? And you see nothing wrong there with the behavior of this particular user? per ad hominem.
After that Iadrian yu tricked administrator The Blade of the Northern Lights into thinking that I am also worth my salt. [62] To which The Blade of the Northern Lights answered that "He's allowed to remove messages from his own talkpage, but not other people, and I agree that edit summary wasn't helpful; I'll leave a note."
Afterwards The Blade of the Northern Lights left a note on my tlak page that "While I appreciate your frustration with Iadrian yu, stuff like this isn't going to help you much"[63].
Well, Iadrian yu meanwhile followed me to 28 articles he had never edited before to partially revert me, and continued harassing me shortly after his frivilous request for AE against me had been rejected. It gives an interesting zest to referring to WP:LETGO.
"As per WP:LETGO I did`t edited any articles by Nmate and stand clear of any future problems". As of when? Because Iadrian yu followed me to 28 articles he had never edited before to partially revert me, shortly after his frivilous request for AE against me had been rejected.
"I hardly can imagine that Nmate's accusation for removing the words "In the 9th century, the territory of [settlement x] became part of the Kingdom of Hungary." was done in good faith." -this sentence is woefully ungrammatical btw- Iadrian yu followed me to 28 articles he had never edited before to partially revert me, shortly after his frivilous request for AE against me had been rejected. Now Iadrian yu is saying that it was done in good faith, and he can hardly imaginge it to be taken otherwise on my part....referring to even WP:LETGO.. seriously? How is it possible this? Does this indicate a normal way of thinking?
My "strong" opinions are represented by Nmate is introduction of the 168 as a violation. I don`t see any problem introduction historical events [169], but Nmate does. I admit that my edit summary was not the best.. but after all that was from 2 years ago!
It is obvious that the edit summry is objectionable here. See:
[64]("Reverted 1 edit by Rokarudi; Unification of Transilvania with Romania is a fact not a POV. Because Hungarian ultra-nationalists claim Transilvania we can`t mention facts?")
The diff is more than 2 years old. However, it is a rather xenophobe viewpoint aimed at Hungarians; it is something that comes instincively. Iadrian yu likes editing Wikipedia along with Hungarian user of whose favourite subject is history while his approach to Hungarians is xenophobe. After I had reported Iadrian yu for this xenophobe edit summary, he gave up on expressing his frank opinion on Hungarians while at the same time he developed an interest for shopping for blocks for me owing to the fact that Iadrian yu is a rather vindictive user as well.
His latest attempt at shopping for a block for me happened on 16:33, 11 October 2012. Considering that Iadrian yu has a more than 2 year old history of shopping for blocks for me, invoking WP:LETGO takes some chutzpah on his part. In addition, it happened shortly after his latest frivilous RFA against me had been closed ,and then followed me to 28 articles he had never edited before to partially revert me. And he thinks that it was a good faith act on his part. Huh? How is it possible this?
To Iadrian yu and Omen1229

There is no point in continuing this discussion because ,as usual, Iadrian yu fiddles with the diffs in a deceptive way; no resason to respond to his further diffs because the discussion could become mazy that is difficult to look over.

I would advise Omen1229 to learn some more English, because his sentences are borderline unreadable. As for "when the Kingdom of Hungary was established", there was a short intermittent period; in fact, it belonged to Hungary at that time, which is true. Interesting enough that Omen1229 can't write in correct English grammar, yet he keeps accusing all the Hungarian users of battleground behaviour. Because I am not the only person who is accused of battleground behaviour by Omen1229. He appears to think that this type of tactic may pay off.

In conclude

I feel it may be a time that a restriction from following me around on Wikipedia be imposed upon Iadrian yu. Because saying that he acts toward me in good faith is not credible i.e. making corrections regarding my edits shortly after his RFA against me was rejected. And even on the same day, Iadrian yu came to the decision to stay away from me to obviate the possibility of the occurance of any problems in the future after following me to yet another 28 articles he had never edited before.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[65]

Discussion concerning Iadrian yu[edit]

Statement by Iadrian yu[edit]

I believe this report is regarding with my previous[66], but anyway...


After this [67], and this I have considered this finished. Unfortunately, Nmate resumed our dispute (first he illegally deleted a comment of mine, being immediately informed for this by an admin) and then filed this report.

As per WP:LETGO I did`t edited any articles by Nmate and stand clear of any future problems (as per my recent contributions) but Nmate has written this comment [68]] considering me as an "anti-Hungarian" editor and more, while I don`t any problems with other Hungarian editors (I have a good cooperation with several Hungarian editors actually) - while he accuses me of belonging to the some organization "Noua Dreaptă"?? By his reasoning does he(Nmate) belongs to the Sixty-Four Counties Youth Movement? Even after this, I did`t engaged in any contact with Nmate. Now this report based on his introduction of original research (Kingdom of Hungary, 9th century[69], but it existed only after 1000 year) by him and my edits reverting that data. Also reverting one edit is hardly an edit war or anything similar. Other editors expressed their opinion too that this is OR ([70], [71], [72],[73]) and in my previous report where I was warned for misusing this board [74].

My "strong" opinions are represented by Nmate is introduction of the [[75]] as a violation. I don`t see any problem introduction historical events [76], but Nmate does. I admit that my edit summary was not the best.. but after all that was from 2 years ago! Reverting original research I don`t see as harassment, and he yet reintroduced a bunch of original research introduced by him??? Based on what [77]? Reading the main and only accusation Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before. - does this mean that I am not allowed to edit articles I never did before? I hardly can imagine that Nmate's accusation for removing the words "In the 9th century, the territory of [settlement x] became part of the Kingdom of Hungary." was done in good faith. Nmate is a Hungarian editor whose preoccupation is the history of his country and I don't think he is not aware of the fact that the Kingdom of Hungary was founded in year 1000 (sources: [78] [79]}).


After all this I just want to WP:LETGO and continue with my work on wikipedia. I believe my contributions prove that. If there is original research I would remove it, and there is no need to write a report for that. Adrian (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]



  1. Yes, you continued our dispute, and there are diffs to prove it in my starting comment. I filled a report against you, and there is no secret about that. I was warned for misusing this board. After this I stayed away from you. If you are answering my statement, please read it carefully.
  2. I did`t "followed" you, I have noticed a couple of weeks ago the problem of your original research but I have left to see if you would correct it, because you are familiar with the fact that your data is incorrect. Also I can notice that you reverted many of then for no apparent reason? May I know why? Since your edit summary is empty... Even in my report you did`t missed the change the accuse me of some things and now based on some reverts you are saying I harass you...I believe that is plain nonsense.
  3. You reverted my message because it was insulting? This was insulting? I am sorry but this is in no way Ad hominem, and if you consider it was you have a board for personal attacks, not as a result writing an edit summary that is truly Ad hominem (Undid revision 517167974 by Iadrian yu (talk) trolling by a highly disruptive user). I guess this comments introduced by you are not insulting (1, 2, 3, Hello you smartass or rather doofus/dummy 4, 5, 6) ? Or this comment where you called me a lot of things based on absolutely nothing where his contributions almost always appear to be aimed at removing Hungarian-related content, or modifying content to be more anti-Hungarian. , The reason why Iadrian yu requested for arbitration against me was that Iadrian yu thinks that the anti-Hungarian side may loose of their turf after Samofi's talk page access was revoked - ??? anti-Hungarian side? lose turf? I was not aware that this was a war.... But all this was not Ad hominem and my comment here [80] was???
  4. I tricked an admin? By asking what I did wrong in my report? By informing of your edit summary and that you deleted my comment on other users page? No comment on this because the words speak for themselves, how are you interpreting them is against their meaning.
  5. As I said before, removing original research is not harassment. Also an uninvolved editor expressed his opinion on this [81] and he did`t saw anything wrong.
  6. I will repeat, I hardly can imagine that Nmate's accusation for removing the words "In the 9th century, the territory of [settlement x] became part of the Kingdom of Hungary." was done in good faith. Nmate is a Hungarian editor whose preoccupation is the history of his country and I don't think he is not aware of the fact that the Kingdom of Hungary was founded in year 1000 (sources: [82] [83]}). And yet you reverted some of this edits and filed a report here based on them...Adrian (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


NPA[edit]

My edit summary was from 2 years ago, and as such I don`t see it relevance to present-day discussions. Introducing a 2 year ago diff is not block-shopping? Talking about old diffs, I don`t want to "dig", but you had a lot of problematic statements (ex:[84], [85], [86]) - looks like you accuse every user of wikistalking? Just because some editor did`t edited that article before?. Saying what I said then is wrong but surely not xenophobic. And that statement was not introduced against a specific user, from my comment it is clear I refer to one specific group (Hungarian ultra-nationalists) and not personally you, or this user. Again I know now that this kind of comments are disruptive and as you noticed also, I did`t used that kind of tone with anyone in recent time(1 year+). I see that after calling me an anti-Hungarian editor you went a step further and labeled me as a xenophobic user. At this point, you talking about block-shopping is really strange. I don`t wish to comment further on this kind of WP:NPA on me. If you wish to talk about the problem you represented on this report, I will respond on that only. Adrian (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I expected a response to my previous answer, number 3 actually and number 6? Adrian (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to "To Iadrian yu and Omen1229" and "In conclude"[edit]
  1. As I said before,After this I stayed away from you. If you are answering my statement, please read it carefully. If you check the time stamps you can notice.
  2. It is clear that you are continuing with your introduction of WP:OR and yet you did`t said the reason of your reverts?
  3. Again, as I said before, removing original research is not harassment. An uninvolved editor expressed his opinion on this [87] and he did`t saw anything wrong.
  4. As for the accusation that I am flowing you, per WP:HOUND - Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. - I have corrected your introduction of invalid data(OR). About your claims of harassment Threatening another person is considered harassment. This includes threats to harm another person, to disrupt their work on Wikipedia, or to otherwise harm them. Statements of intent to properly use normal Wikipedia processes, such as dispute resolution, are not threats. - I did`t threat you in any way with my comments or contributions.
  5. After all this I just want to WP:LETGO and continue with my work on wikipedia. I believe my contributions prove that. If there is original research I would remove it, and there is no need to write a report for that.
  6. I am confused, just because I (or anybody else) did`t edited that article before that means I am not able to do so in the future? Do you WP:OWN this articles? So nobody new is allowed to edit them?

Adrian (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

I am really interested why User:Nmate avoids to give an answer why is he continuing with the introduction of WP:OR and yet did`t said the reason of his reverts? This is the base for this report after all. As he said, 28 of them.

  • If I or anybody else correct this data again, does this mean there will be a new report as some sort of "harassment" against this user?
  • Or another accusation of wikistalking [88]?
  • Or engage in an edit war?
  • Or a label to whomever disagree`s with his as an "anti-Hungarian" editor who fight for "terf" [89] and is xenophobe [90] ? Adrian (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Response to User:Tijfo098[edit]

I actually try to stay away from this user because of his attitude, he actually labeled me. When I stumbled on 3 articles with the same problematic data introduced by Nmate, after a couple of minutes I noticed that this is introduced on a lot more articles. I don`t believe this is wikihounding since I did`t interfere to create problems nor to disrupt this user in any way. Per WP:HOUND - Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. - I did exactly this. As far as I can see, everybody agrees that data "In the 9th century, the territory of [settlement x] became part of the Kingdom of Hungary." is false (OR). Adrian (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Response to User:Fakirbakir[edit]

I agree. Nmate inserted Kingdom of Hungary. As such you can see why I see this statement problematic. Even the Principality of Hungary was not active in the 9th century. If the data were valid, with sources, I have nothing against the inclusion of it. Since the earliest data about the Principality of Hungary is circa year 900, I have nothing against of adding something like "Around the year 900 (since it is circa, we can`t know for sure if it is 9 or 10 century) the territory of [settlement x] became part of the Principality of Hungary. - sounds more realistic, but is still requires a source per wiki policies. Because at least we have some indications that this is very possible. I discussed this also with another editor and it seems this would be fine by him too[91]. What Nmate did is clearly WP:OR. Adrian (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Response to the proposed sanction[edit]

I think this would be a bad idea, for both of us.

The warning I received in 2010 for AE is not a usual one [92] I misbehaved but I at least I had valid reasons [93]. The admin could`t retract the warning but had more understanding after seeing this diffs.

After all, this is what User:Nmate wanted from the start of all this [94]. All editors who expressed their opinion here agreed that I was right in removing the statement about Hungary in 9th century, so I don't understand why I am blamed for it with an indefinite ban for some topics. I don`t see why I have to have any restriction because of the unconventional behavior of this user? All this could be avoided if he would just talk and not used blind reverts.

  • (My proposal) -I did`t wrote a any kind of report in a while, while I can`t say this for Nmate. Maybe we(both users) could be restricted for filing reports against each-other and if a serious problem arises in the future to be solved with contacting an admin on the talk page.

I don`t have any problems with any other user(in particular with Hungarian users on Hungary-related articles). He have written this report based on content dispute, not me, as such I don`t see fair for introducing any restriction to me. I was warned for misusing this board a couple of days ago, but after comments he used, and the type of language he showed here, I thought that was unacceptable. As I stayed away from Nmate all this time, I will in the future too, but when I see a clear violation like it is presented in this case I would correct it.Adrian (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise - I don`t understand how my behavior is more tendentious. Please check this: [95] and [96]. Adrian (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Response to User:CoolKoon[edit]

I can understand your logic but I don`t agree with it. Just because I did`t edited an article before that doesn`t mean I am not allowed to do that in the future. Your examples have sense if you wish to show me like I am following Nmate, but how about this articles : [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102] (just a few examples) did Nmate edited them too? You make it look like I edit some articles just because Nmate does(what about the 90% of my contributions that have no contact with Nmate?) but I haven`t had any contact with this user for a while until now. I fail to see why do you think I deserve any kind of sanction? You presented a case like a problem for excluding info,... I am deleting unreferenced info while Nmate is "constructive" introducing unreferenced info and entering in conflicts while he insist it`s inclusion? Because I removed OR introduced by Nmate? Since my last report "boomerang" against me, by the same conditions, I except something similar to happen here without any block on either side since this is a content dispute. I notice that some of the worst comments on wiki by Nmate are ignored([103] and [104] - while for much less I got warned in 2010) but on my account removing a OR is a problem. Adrian (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Iadrian yu[edit]

I can confirm that Adrian is right in removing the sentence about "Kingdom of Hungary in 9th century". Instead of edit warring and reinserting unsourced stataments, he could have done a little research and learn that the Kingdom of Hungary was established by Stephen I in 1000 AD. He could simply have read the infobox of Kingdom of Hungary article, but he preferred to revert Adrian, what looks like battleground mentality for me. In the future, Nmate please use reliable source for exact [settlement x], because the form of government was at times changed or ambiguous, causing interruptions, for example [105]. --Omen1229 (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC) --Omen1229 (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a simple content dispute. I agree those settlements did not become parts of the Kingdom of Hungary in the 9th century but all of them became integral parts of the rising Principality of Hungary at the beginning of the 10th century. The Hungarian conquest was done by 902 according to the researchers. Moreover, the territories controlled by the Hungarian Grand Princes were much bigger than the latter territory of Kingdom of Hungary. For instance, the western borders of the principality reached to River Enns (today the border region between Upper and Lower Austria) until 955 because of the typical nomadic march (frontier, Gyepüelve in Hungarian) borderlands. Another thing, the map demonstrated by Omen1229 is highly dubious and misleading because the northern parts of Kingdom of Hungary or according to the map the "Slovak lands" (this expression is also dubious in the 11th century in connection with Kingdom of Hungary) were parts of Poland only from 1003 to 1015 or from 1015 to 1018 (according to the sources, see History of Slovakia). Fakirbakir (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iadrian yu indeed took interest in Nmate's editing. The issue here is that the content added by Nmate is unreferenced and it consists of pretty obscure historical facts/claims that were added in cookie-cutter fashion to many articles. So I don't know if removing that is sanctionable, other than for both sides edit warring over it. Furthermore there are WP:SYNT concerns with adding info about who the territory belonged to three centuries before this or that village was ever mentioned in the historical record. (The list of former claimants/occupiers/migrators through that land can be pretty long.) Tijfo098 (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I have to comment on this, especially since I thought that the issue would go away after Adrian's failed attempt at having ArbCom impose a topic ban on Nmate as per the DIGWUREN case, but obviously it didn't. Don't get me wrong, Nmate can become really agitated at times (e.g. removing content from another user's talk page is a no-no) and needs to polish his English skills as well (an "issue" which has earned him a sanction when he called another editor a "pest" simply because he probably wasn't aware of the fact that the term sounds much harsher than he meant it to be), but I still have to say that he's a "constructive" editor because he's usually adding contents. This is in contrary to editors who oppose him (Adrian and Omen1229 being among them) and who are much keener on removing content instead of adding it (e.g. removal of Hungarian place names from articles being the most notorious example). I'd say that this alone's proof of the fact that this is much more than a simple "content dispute" (it's more of a "generalized" content dispute). And to make it worse while Nmate definitely shows a slight pro-Hungarian bias in his edits (basically he only edits articles which have any kind of connection to Hungary's present or past), his opposition is showing not only the exact opposite (i.e. an almost obsessive desire to remove Hungarian-related content from ANY article, even one that's as innocuous-looking as the one about Franz Liszt) but also a tendency to follow Nmate around (e.g. why'd Adrian go about editing articles about Hungarian villages of Slovakia if it's obvious that he's either a Serbian editor living in Romania or a Romanian editor living in Serbia -most probably Vojvodina-? Or Omen1229: why'd he post a notice on the Cluj-Napoca article's talk page if he's never edited Romanian-related articles before? Or why'd he suddenly edit articles about some small Transcarpathian villages that lie near the border if he has never engaged in such topics before? Isn't the only connection between those edits the fact that Nmate has edited them?) and express opinions about Hungarians in general that border paranoia (e.g. Adrian's edit summary from 2 years ago quoted above or this "friendly" ANI report by Omen1229 after I noted on his talk page that he might want to make the tone of his edits more neutral to avoid accusations of bias and one-sided POV). Therefore I think that imposing the very same restrictions for both Nmate and Adrian would create an impression that anti-Hungarian editors can do much more disruption than the people who are trying to stop them before they get any sanctions.

As for the admins' comments I have to side with Fut. Perf I'm afraid as per my reasons above. He was also right in pointing out the problem with imposing country-wise restrictions. Basically Slovakia (i.e. a state or a de facto recognized region of the land where the Slovaks live) did not exist before 1918 at all, so a topic ban of Slovakia would be pretty pointless for Nmate (who rarely seems to edit articles that concern present-day Slovakia and Slovak historical figures anyway), and in historical context he'd just say that he's dealing with content that deals with Hungarian history (and would be absolutely right even if the article's about villages lying in Slovakia; the same applies to Transylvania, Vojvodina and Transcarpathia all of which lie outside of Hungary's border but were part of Hungary prior to 1918). Also to turn this around a Hungarians-related ban for Adrian would also mean that he'd be banned from editing articles pertaining the Hungarian history as well (at least that's how it'd be interpreted by Hungarian editors I think). Therefore maybe a combination of interaction ban and an ethnic topics related ban would be a tad bit more effective. -- CoolKoon (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why'd he post a notice on the Cluj-Napoca article's talk page if he's never edited Romanian-related articles before? > it's a problem for you? 1. Romanian-related article are not prohibited for users who them never edited before and 2. the reason is simple - it is similar issue as Bratislava article - WP recommendations are not accepted - Alternative names in begin section --Omen1229 (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the fact that you've started editing a brand new article isn't problematic on its own. However the article in question deals with a city that you obviously never heard of, don't know anything about and never been at in the first place. Thus there's a high probability of you stumbling upon it either by stalking around Nmate or another Hungarian editor or hearing about it from a banned+blocked Romanian editor who shall not be named. And frankly speaking I don't know which one's worse. Besides I won't cite WP recommendations if I were you because it was a Serbian editor with a strong anti-Hungarian bias (who shall not be named either) that insisted on the elimination of the minority names and misinterpreted/twisted all the WP rules and recommendations on the matter to make them "sound" in his favor. -- CoolKoon (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your strange synthesis are more and more boring. Please stop with personal attacks or do you have some evidence that I never heard about Kluž? Thus there's a high probability of you stumbling upon it either by stalking around Nmate or another Hungarian editor > Completely outside, stalking around Nmate or another editors is totally unacceptable for me. "high probability" - what it means? Are you accusing me without evidence or what? So again - the reason is simple - it is similar issue as Bratislava article - WP recommendations are not accepted. And what do you think about these edits [106]?--Omen1229 (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strange synthesis? Do you REALLY think that anybody would believe the fact that you've ended up there "by chance" or "by a mistake" that had nothing to do with either the Hungarian editors or the Romanian puppet master? I mean anybody who checks your edit log will see that never before have you edited ANY of the articles that deal with Romania (or Transcarpathia for that matter), yet all of a sudden you had this "sudden urge" to "export" the completely unconstructive discussion from the Bratislava article's talk page to that of Cluj? And then you "spontaneously" appeared on articles that deal with some Transcarpathian villages only to remove edits of Nmate by chance alone? I certainly hope that no people in their right mind would buy that.
What about the edits on the Elie Wiesel article? It's ok to show interest in Hungarian politics in general, but copying extracts from published articles word by word constitutes a copyright violation which's supposed to be reverted on sight (even the Hungarian president had to resign for similar reasons and besides, the newspaper agency could then sue Wikipedia's pants off for this). Thus Nmate has removed it. In fact I would've removed it too. It really isn't Nmate's fault that your English needs considerable improvement (to be able to slightly reword/summarize content extracted from news portals). -- CoolKoon (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And then you "spontaneously" appeared on articles that deal with some Transcarpathian villages only to remove edits of Nmate by chance alone? I certainly hope that no people in their right mind would buy that. > Do you think articles where Nmate deleted my contribs without reason? I do not know what is your intention and your essays + synthesis without evidence are boring and confusing for me.
What about the edits on the Elie Wiesel article?... Thus Nmate has removed it. > I use your sentences: Do you REALLY think that anybody would believe the fact that Nmate has ended up there (for example here: 1 2) "by chance" or "by a mistake" that had nothing to do with either the Slovak/Romanian/Serbs editors or the Hungarian puppet master? And my Transylvanian puppet master is Count Dracula for your info. --Omen1229 (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Future Perfect at Sunrise wrote "I'm not sure I see the situation as quite so symmetrical. I'm open to convinced otherwise , but where I've looked, it has usually seemed to me that Nmate came across as consistently more rational, more articulate and less tendentious than Iadrian yu." > How can Nmate be more rational than Adrian? Adrian never referred to Nmate's I.Q. like Nmate did about Adrian's Iadrian yu is not an I.Q. champion. Adrian never ilegally deleted others' commments like Nmate did [107] . Adrian never recently used this kind of edit summaries [108] (ask a Hungarian for the translation) Adrian never removed correct templates, like "unreferenced" for an unreferenced article [109].Future Perfect at Sunrise had no problem give me topic-ban from all edits relating to Slovak-Historian history for a period of six months [110], he promised that he will look on my "oponnents", but nothing happened. On the other hand after canvass of Nmate he had time to block Samofi [111] . This was reason for him for topic ban: [112] and this for a block: [113] But for example this statement (The modern Slovakia is a neo-fascist state where the hungarian minority is just a thing what they have to assimilate into the slovak society. [114] ) was unnoticed. Now "he thinks – refused to take action against Nmate" and he has also "a practical issue about overlap in the scope of the topic bans".--Omen1229 (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by CoolKoon moved here from below. @EdJohnston: The problem with such thinking is that many of Hungary's historical (or even some living) figures were born in places that don't belong to Hungary anymore yet they spent most of their life either in places that still belong to Hungary or went abroad (e.g. Endre Ady,Béla Bartók, Ányos Jedlik, Péter Pázmány etc. the list goes on and on), so interpreting today's borders in historical context (especially Hungarian historical context) is really asking for trouble (especially so since all the admins including you could be bugged with exceptions on a case-by-case basis almost every day considering the amount of such "controversial" historical figures). I still think that an interaction ban would be a better idea. (on a semi-related note I think I've read on WikiTravel that tourists traveling to Hungary should avoid bringing up the issue of Trianon unless they're good friends with the people they're visiting and/or are really knowledgeable about the topic which is a really good advice I'd say). -- CoolKoon (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that both editors (Iadrian yu and Nmate) are reasonable and made several beneficial contributions to Wikipedia over the years, they just cannot get along with each other. I see the logic behind EdJohnston's suggestion, but I think that it would be a bit unfair in its original form, since it would affect Nmate much more. The "problematic" articles around which conflicts usually arise are exactly the ones which are somehow connected to the regions which were parts of the Kingdom of Hungary (KoH) before WWI, but became parts of other countries with the Treaty of Trianon. Therefore, restricting the edits to the modern boundaries would almost exclusively effect only Nmate. I agree with CoolKoon and also think that an interaction ban would be the best solution for the problem. Best wishes, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: A quick note about the foundation of KoH: it was indeed founded in 1000 (or alternatively in 1001), thus it did not exist in the 9th, however, KoH had emerged from the Principality of Hungary which was founded after the arrival of the Hungarian tribes, traditionally dated to 895 (9th century). So while Nmate's statement is indeed imprescience, it is not as incorrect as it looks, since the principality existed from the 9th century. On the other hand, I agree that it does not make to much sense providing this info if the town/village did not exist in the 9th century (or it is not proven that it did exist, since the first historical record is from a later century). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everybody. I am a Slovak contributor also editing articles about Slovak settlements and I arrived on this board by chance, when visiting the edit history of some users whose interests are alike. My view is that a complete interaction ban would be counterproductive, since exchange of opinions can contribute to better written articles (maybe without Adrian's involvement, the inexact sentence about Hungary in 9th century would have remained unnoticed). The number of editors concerned with this area of ​​interest (Slovak settlements) is even now insufficient.

I appreciate that the interaction between Adrian and Nmate should not be stopped, but only better regulated. This kind of measures could be useful:

1. Zero reverts before a prior discussion on the article talk page. If the disagreement cannot be solved, they should ask for help from other users. Also after 1 week without a reply on the talk page from the other side, the revert can be done.

2. A restriction regarding reports (something similar to the Hawk-Eye system from Tennis). After one of them reports the other and the judges feel that no punitive measure is needed, the reporter should be forbidden to make another report against the other in the next 6 months. Whether the report is considered legitimate ("correct challenge"), he can still file a report in the next 6 months.

  • I would like to ask user EdJohnston to reconsider his proposal. Both users like to edit history related articles. Their contributions are valuable and they usually behave in a polite manner. I think restricting their editing within the modern boundaries of their permitted countries is not suitable solution in this case because we need their different approaches to the historical debates, especially in connection with history of countries of Central Europe. I am always curious for Adrian and Nmate's viewpoints. Usually they could discuss their content problems on the talk pages of the articles. That is another question why they did put those problems here (but this is irrelevant). They do not like each other but without them we could not see different options about the same historical case. Those viewpoints are also important for the sake of historical accuracy. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Iadrian yu[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Link to or quote the exact remedy you wish us to enforce. Please word your request so that someone with no background will be able to understand your request.--Tznkai (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is easy to see that Nmate and Iadrian yu have repeatedly clashed on Eastern European topics over the last couple of years. Admins should consider doing something. If we still believed in interaction bans, I would propose that. Instead, I suggest that the domain of Eastern Europe be divided up to reduce the interaction between these editors. Nmate has received a logged notice under WP:ARBEE and Iadrian yu was effectively notified of ARBEE due to the filing of a complaint against him at AE in August, 2010.
To reduce the interaction between these editors I propose an indefinite ban of each editor from certain countries:
  • Nmate to be banned from Romania, Serbia and Slovakia
  • Iadrian yu to be banned from Hungary and the Czech Republic.
This division would still allow each editor to contribute in the areas they appear to know best. Iadrian yu identifies himself as a native speaker of Romanian and a level-5 speaker of Serbian. Nmate doesn't made his language abilities known on his user page but the 16 articles he has created are mainly about towns populated by Hungarians.
  • Each of the two users has made past edits which suggest to me they have problems with neutrality when writing about topics that concern particular ethnicities. My proposal doesn't solve that problem, since Nmate will be able to write unchecked by Iadrian yu in articles in his own domain, and vice versa. This proposal mainly conserves admin bandwidth and space at the noticeboards. If any further problems arise with these editors on Eastern European topics, other parties can report them. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see the situation as quite so symmetrical. I'm open to convinced otherwise , but where I've looked, it has usually seemed to me that Nmate came across as consistently more rational, more articulate and less tendentious than Iadrian yu. For that reason, and also because we just – rightly, I think – refused to take action against Nmate in pretty much the same matters, I don't think handing out equal sanctions against each at this point would be quite fair.
There's also a practical issue about overlap in the scope of the topic bans. How are they going to be delimited, by modern state boundaries? Keep in mind that, for instance, Slovakia was part of Hungary for a large part of its history. So, if editor A is banned from Slovakia and B from Hungary, which of the two is still allowed to edit about shared history? If A writes an article about a Hungarian king, will he be blocked if the article mentions that he conquered a city that is now in Slovakia? If B writes an article about a Slovak town, will he be blocked if the article mentions what administrative unit the town was part of in the 19th century? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For problems with Nmate's editing, see the list of reverts submitted with this report. Nmate was adding to 28 different articles that the territory in which they were located became part of the Kingdom of Hungary in the 9th century, while our own article on Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages says that the kingdom began in the year 1000. Nmate is assigning these towns to the kingdom (a) before sources say that the kingdom existed, (b) before there is any historical record of the existence of the towns themselves. This looks to be pro-Hungary glorification. See also the Executive Court of Prešov, an article created by Nmate which retains most of the non-neutral text (and lack of sources) with which he created it in 2008.
  • For problems with overlap of nationalities in EE, I suggest that each party could work on anything that is located within the modern boundaries of their permitted countries, even if the town (or person) was connected with a different nationality in the period being written about. Each party could consult the banning administrator for exemption in particular cases. EdJohnston (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree there are issues with the proposed sanction. I'm not sure fine tuning it is even workable. The modification of using modern boundaries still doesn't address old boundaries adequately; I forsee endless quibbles about shared territories and borderline articles, etc. Is there anything else you think might work, Ed? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sanction I proposed has not won general support, so I recommend this be closed with no action. In my opinion Nmate's report here has as little merit as the previous one filed by User:Iadrian yu. Further reports of a similar nature may have a WP:BOOMERANG effect on the submitter. My suggestion is that a two-month topic ban from Eastern Europe should be considered next time one of the parties brings a complaint here with evidence that shows them just as much at fault as the other person. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antidiskriminator[edit]

Antidiskriminator is banned indefinitely from the topic of Pavle Đurišić on all pages of Wikipedia. A one-year freeze is imposed on all move proposals regarding Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Request concerning Antidiskriminator[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
ARBMAC
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 2 and Talk:Pavle Đurišić from 9/08/12 onwards, User:Antidiskriminator has created nearly two dozen separate sections on Talk:Pavle Đurišić about supposed deficiencies in Pavle Đurišić causing a great deal of disruption with only minor improvement to the article but until 03/10/12 refused to substantively edit in article space to address the supposed deficiencies, instead expecting the editors that had helped promote the article to MILHIST A-Class and FA to do so apparently in order to gather evidence that those editors are not abiding by WP:NPOV in relation to the general topic of Chetniks - Pavle Đurišić was a Chetnik. See also [115].
  2. move to German-occupied Serbia 12/09/12 Started a second RM immediately after an RM was closed Not Moved. This RM was also closed (on 21 August 2012) with the result Not Moved. Disruption and failure to accept a lack of consensus for a title change.
  3. [116] 29/09/12 Dominated this thread making observations about the alleged behaviour of editors opposing a title change. Disruption and failure to accept a lack of consensus for a title change.
  4. [117] 10/09/12 Started another thread about the title, again making observations about the alleged behaviour of editors opposing a title change. Continued disruption and failure to accept a lack of consensus for a title change.
  5. [118] 14/09/12 Started another thread about the title, again making observations about the alleged behaviour of editors opposing a title change. Same again.
  6. [119] 18/09/12 Started another thread about the title, again making observations about the alleged behaviour of editors opposing a title change. Same again.
  7. [120] 29/09/12 WP:WIKIHOUNDING but request here [[121] to stop has been ignored and the behaviour has continued, and escalated, with specific references being made to the lack of consensus for the RMs at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia.


Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. Warned on [122] 19/10/10 by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) in relation to not accepting consensus at Skanderbeg - I know this is old, but I included it just to show that User:Antidiskriminator has been well aware of the ARBMAC sanctions for a long time and has prior form for not accepting consensus.
  2. Warned on [123] 17/08/12 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) in relation to 3RR/edit-warring on Religion in Albania
  3. Warned on [124] 02/09/12 by PRODUCER (talk · contribs) in relation to edit-warring on Pavle Djurisic
  4. Warned on [125] 06/09/12 by ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs) in relation to edit-warring on Siege of Shkodra
  5. Warned on [126] 23/09/12 by DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) in relation to disruption (ARBMAC)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I consider User:Antidiskriminator has been highly disruptive across several articles which fall under the ARBMAC sanctions for a period of six weeks or more, including a complete failure to accept that there has been a lack of consensus for a title change. I should probably have reported their behaviour before this, but am a relatively new user and have not had much experience with filing reports, especially not at this level. I want to say up-front that I have found User:Antidiskriminator's behaviour very frustrating, and I may have strayed off the civility path on a couple of occasions due to that frustration and numerous provocations. I am aware that is no excuse and accept that I may be sanctioned myself for that, and will take any such sanction with good grace. However, I feel that since DIREKTOR's warning, the WP:WIKIHOUNDING has taken this beyond the bounds of what could possibly be acceptable and that, combined with User:Antidiskriminator's behaviour on a number of ARBMAC articles, makes it appropriate to file this report now. I just want User:Antidiskriminator to accept when there is no consensus for a move (or edit), stop disrupting articles with long lists of demands on the talkpage and expecting other editors to comply with their demands, and stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING me (which is in my view directly related to the failure to accept lack of consensus and continued disruption). I believe some form of coercion is necessary to get them to stop their disruption and related behaviour.

In response to Antidiskriminator's claims about only starting one RM at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, I would like to point out that his version of events leaves out some important details. He started a thread saying the title should be changed on 6 August, claimed there was already consensus for a title change on 8 August (despite the fact that there was an open RM), two days after the previous RM closed (on 10 August) he opened a new one himself which closed on 21 August. This was followed with a tranche of WP:WIKILAWYERING about what dispute resolution processes should be used to resolve this "issue", then another attempt to revert to an earlier title by claiming that the consensus move overseen by Buckshot06 was not really consensus. This was then followed by an attempt to get up a multi-choice RFC, then a new thread called "Help needed to resolve the problem - II" which was essentially about Antidiskriminator's unhappiness that the title of the article hadn't been changed. In the meantime he popped over to Talk:Chetniks on 10 September [127] to restart discussions about a source used on Pavle Djurisic, then started an RFC on 23 September [128] because he wouldn't accept the consensus on RSN about the same source. Antidiskriminator allegedly gave up on changing the title of Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia on 25 September, after about six weeks of non-stop failure to accept consensus. A few days later he appears at Operation Southeast Croatia and opposes a move that was the last of a series of related moves Director and I had discussed over several months (despite the fact that Antidiskriminator had never previously edited that article or any of the related articles), and claims that this was another example of Director and I moving an article without consensus (allegedly just like the Buckshot06 overseen move at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia). It's pretty transparent really. That is the full story. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think that the move freeze suggested by the admins would be an appropriate measure to help editors to focus on article content, but it doesn't address several aspects of Antidiskriminator's editing behaviour mentioned in this report. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Antidiskriminator's mention of the "27 consensuses" he states he has respected, I'd like to point out a couple of things. He is the final arbiter of what these "consensuses" he is respecting are. Note the fact that he lists them on a table with a "Yes" when he has achieved what he wants. That doesn't mean that he is respecting a "consensus". Conversely all the ones which he lists as "Partial" or "No" (currently 15 in number) he continues to pursue even when there is a clear consensus that the point he wants to be included in the article should not be included, that the sources are not reliable etc etc ad nauseum. The Iron Cross ones are classic examples of this. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[129]


Discussion concerning User:Antidiskriminator[edit]

Statement by User:Antidiskriminator[edit]

  • After Peacemaker67 requested A-class review of Pavle Đurišić at WikiProject Serbia (diff) (where I am one of the most active members), I responded to his request and started being involved with this article (and many other articles about WWII in Yugoslavia, including major battles and offensives). Here is a list of my contributions to Pavle Đurišić article. I don't think my edits (of this or any other article) were "an endless succcession of tedious, unproductive squabbling" because they pointed out valid flaws and were used as a tool to improve the quality of the article. If I am wrong, I sincerely apologize.
  • My first edit of the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia was nine months before ‎Peacemaker67 started editing wikipedia. I tried to help resolving the name issue of this article and decided to give up on 25 September although I believe my efforts were constructive and supported by the majority of editors.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • @EdJohnston: I started one move request at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia (link). I believe I provided appropriate rationale which was based on wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME). My proposal was supported by majority of editors (6:5 during RM discussion if I am not wrong) with several editors who joined later discussions after RM was over and who also supported the name I proposed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Peacemaker67:
        1. Yes, I said there is a consensus that the title of the article Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia should be changed. This consensus still exists because all editors still think the article should be renamed (just look at the talk page and two active RM). Accusation about my "failure to accept that there has been a lack of consensus" are therefore groundless and contradict to additional accusations about "non-stop failure to accept consensus".
        2. I tried to help to determine the new name of the article and majority of editors (I believe) still support the name I initially proposed, based on wikipedia policies and guidelines. I sincerely apologize if I did something wrong in the process. I gave up my attempts on 25 September because I believe it is impossible to resolve the name issue of this article as long as a small group of editors with similar editing pattern are trying to score a point in another dispute ("statehood dispute" of this entity) using "there was (no) Serbia" claim as main argument instead of wikipedia policies and guidelines. Three most active editors of this group wrote 2,000 comments link. One of them is sanctioned.
        3. Yes, on 10 September I wrote information about Cohen's work being unreliable source based on RSN discussion link. I posted that information not only at Chetniks talkpage, but on Yugoslav Partisans as well (diff) and all other articles I discovered were using Cohen as source (diff, diff, diff ...). There is nothing wrong with it. That was 6 days before second RSN discussion was started (diff), which ended with weak consensus or no consensus, depending on the interpretation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will have limited access to internet, if any, until 29 September.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I also support a measure proposed by EdJohnston. This move dispute has indeed generated tens of thousands of words for many years and still continues to generate repetitious talk discussions. Forbidding the initiation of further move requests seems necessary for now.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are 27 consensuses I reached and respected at Pavle Đurišić when I helped to completely or partially resolve many (27 for now) of this article's flaws (link). The aim of my review was improving the article's quality (not delisting it) because I believe that status of the article is less important than its quality (like I clearly stated during the discussion: i.e. diff).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning User:Antidiskriminator[edit]

Comment by Athenean[edit]

I don't see anything remotely actionable in the limited evidence provided by Peacemaker, especially with respect to WP:HOUND. I think part of the problem is that Peacemaker is misunderstanding WP:HOUND. Extended talkpage discussions are not Wikihounding, if someone tires of a discussion the simplest and best thing to do is to leave. Providing links to talkpage threads is completely unhelpful and meaningless. I have interacted with Antidiskriminator in the past and have always found him to be model of civility and courteous behavior, even when he is the victim of incivil behavior, as is often the case. He has a clean block log and is always careful to provide sources for his edits. He is also highly skilled at finding sources difficult to access, and as such is a valuable contributor to this topic area. Athenean (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only wikihounding I see here is by Gaius Claudius Nero (bringing up year-old diffs, now that's wikihounding), not to mention accusations of bad faith and conspiracy theories. Athenean (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by WhiteWriter[edit]

I also dont find anything sanctionable here. Based on my previous experiences with User:Antidiskriminator, he may be regarded as great, highly relevant and good faithed editor, with great knowledge of wiki guidelines and usage of sources and references. Also, i never saw that he lost his temper, even for a bit, which is priceless. Diffs presented are unrelated to the WPHOUND. I also highly doubt that user is capable to do any guidelines breach, as it was presented. In the end, editor for example. Also, as i already stated on ANI, this AE is nothing more then try to eliminate opposing side in a dispute, in a previously successful traveling circus attack way, usually unrelated to the problem. Antid's numerous constructive propositions to solve the obvious problem with page Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia are obviously problematic for some. Therefore, i can expect several editors included in this problem to recall any problematic situation from the past and present, in order to fulfill this request. This is a example where content dispute can end, in a traveling circus caravan. --WhiteWriterspeaks 13:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by PRODUCER[edit]

I found Anti's behavior at the Pavle Đurišić article to constitute tendentious editing and to be belligerent. After the article had been promoted to FA status for some time (28 August), Anti took his first personal A-class review [130] and then he cut up his points into sections on the article's talk page where he tried whatever tactic he could to remove information he personally disliked and push in information he does like, in essence throwing whatever can stick. After that he rehashed them twice [131][132] and posted them as reasons as to why the article should not be A class article! Reaching whatever reason he can no matter how baseless, unfounded, the long length discussion, or the numerous sections in which they were discussed:

  • Communist subordination:
    • On 26 August, he brought it up in his initial review [133]
    • On 24 August, since that failed, he brought it up again at the article talkpage [134]
    • On 3 September, since that failed, he brought it up in his rehashed review [135]
  • Family/parents:
    • On 15 August, he brought it up in his initial review [136]
    • On 24 August, since that failed, he brought it up again at the article talkpage [137]
    • On 3 September, since that failed, he brought it up in his rehashed review [138]
  • Iron Cross:
    • On 22 August he claimed that there is a controversy [139]
    • On 25 August, since that failed, he claimed that there was undue weight [140],
    • On 31 August, since that failed, he attacked the source that supports the award. [141]
    • On 3 September, since that failed, he stated all at once that it is disputed, that there's undue weight, and that the source used is unreliable in his rehashed review [142]
  • A song:
    • On 26 August, he brought it up in his initial review [143]
    • On 2 September, since that failed, he brought it up again at the article talkpage [144]
  • Berane:
    • On 26 August, he brought it up in his initial review [145]
    • On 2 September, since that failed, he brought it up again at the article talkpage [146]
    • On 18 September, since that failed, again brought it up [147]

These are by no means the only diffs available, in many cases Anti takes one topic and interjects it while discussing another. To further his control of the talk page (in what I can only interpret as an attempt to WP:OWN it) he makes use of a "unresolved" template for every discussion in which he does not have a favorable outcome (no matter how long the matter was discussed or how weak his arguments) and reverts anyone who dares modify them. [148][149] To Anti users on the talk page are a blockade of sorts and continues to refuse to get the point and simply reiterates the same views and points he held previously through duplicate sections and discussions. The same editorial behavior can be found on the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article where with WhiteWriter he has attempted to push their POV (including that of PANONIAN who was banned on AE for his disruptive behavior [150]) continuously and over many redundant sections. His support of him is no surprise. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Greek editor aware of this discussion and vouching for Anti? Hmmm... --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Antidiskriminator was blocked indefinitely on his Serbian account early this year for his disruptive behavior and "systematic trolling". [151][152] He was blocked by four different admins for the same behavioral problem on numerous occasions in the past. [153] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by ZjarriRrethues[edit]
  • The report summarizes Antidiskriminator's decorum breaches and editing very concisely. The major issue regarding Antidiskriminator is his denial to accept consensus which is followed by semi-"retaliatory" acts i.e. wikihounding among others. On Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia he kept starting new discussions on the same topics using different arguments every time as he couldn't gain approval. As that was becoming an ad infinitum situation he followed Peacemaker67 and disputed him on articles he had never shown any interest in(Pavle Durisic etc.). There's a long history of that particular kind of editing as evidenced by the ARBMAC warnings (first in 2010 for restarting the same debates against consensus; latest in 2012 for the same reasons) and edit-warring warnings.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does Antidiskriminator mean by the second part of his statement? The result of his RM was no consensus. Where does he base his belief that his proposal regarding the title issue was supported by the majority of editors?
  • That being said, source and especially RS abuse has been a major issue as Antidiskriminator uses them selectively and always insists that his sources are RS regardless of their extreme nature. For example, on Vulnetari (Albanian semi-collaborationist unit of WWII) he was using Smilja Avramov, a councillor of Milosevic and flagrant anti-semite who among others has written that Olaf Palme, JF Kennedy and Aldo Moro were all killed by the Trilateral Commission because they broke the vow of secrecy ...the destruction of Yugoslavia was a joint endeavour of the Vatican and the US establishment. Four (Peacemaker67, Aigest, PRODUCER, I) users who pointed out the nature of his sources got WP:IDHT responses about the arguments being unrelated to RS and that RSN was needed (Talk:Vulnetari#General comment). The wikilawyering was followed by an article he wrote on Smilja Avramov that essentially constitutes whitewashing as he labeled her a law expert and omitted everything controversial including her beliefs on the Protocols of Zion, her involvement in the Yugoslav Wars and most recently her decision to act as a defendant witness in the cases of Karadzic/Mladic. In fact, he chose to only use one source, which, in fact, doesn't mention her at all (given url).

--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed, Antidiskriminator's indef bban[154][155] on sr.wikipedia is quite instructive. PRODUCER, could you explain the conditions, which lead to the indef ban, for those of us that don't speak Serbo-Croatian?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can Antid. please not label his [156] RM as supported by the majority? It was closed as no consensus with 5 opinions pro and 5 against it (Antid. counts as a sixth support his own twice-stated comment(proper nom and !support below)). That being said, the approach of Antid. towards move discussions i.e. counting and misrepresenting support/oppose !votes instead of evaluating arguments is indicative of the overall issues.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basically he was annoying and disruptive, got blocked a couple times, then for a year. Then he picked up where he left-off, got warned, and finally indeffed with widespread approval. Now he's here, giving enWiki his undivided attention. -- Director (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Gaius Claudius Nero[edit]

I have been Wikihounded by Antidiskriminator for more than a year (I considered retiring because of it) and never brought myself to reporting the constant offenses he had made against me. Below are some of what I perceived as violations which he had made against me since 2010 (out of what could be much more):

  • Talk:Albanian–Venetian War (1447–1448): Here you can see a constant barrage of WP:IDHT and the flood of messages constantly repeating the same points over and over again.
  • [157]: Here he is violating WP:Battle by bringing up an irrelevant topic (Harry Hodgkinson's reliability which we had debated on other topics) in order to trap me into making an admission that the source he mentions is unreliable, even though it had never before been mentioned in the talk page.
  • [158]: Here he is again violating WP:Battle by giving me an ultimatum for what he considered original research (for something which I think is WP:Common Sense) and violates the rules of cooperation (although I later changed it the way he asked me, something I could have done much more quickly if he did not try to trap me into an ultimatum).
  • [159]: Here he is violating WP:AGF by stating that I hid sources from him (although he later apologized).
  • Template talk:Campaignbox Ottoman–Albanian Wars: Here he is again violating WP:IDHT and refusing to cooperate with me even I signalled to him that I wanted to try to reach a consensus (Just so you know, I'm trying to reach a consensus with you...)
  • [160]: Here he violates WP:AGF and attacks me for a personal error, also showing blatant incivility.

Like I said, these are only a few of what could be more and they are the cases that I remember most because they are some of the earliest cases. There are many instances where he came into a talk page soon after I edited there for the FIRST time (eg. compare [161] to [162] and compare [163] to [164]), I assume from constantly checking my contributions log (although there could of course be other ways, but I could find more examples if requested). This is what WP:HOUND says: Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is definitely the impression that I got from his constant confrontation on most of the pages I work on (mostly ones with the medieval history). WP:HOUND also says this: The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. Although I hate to admit, the main reason I considered retiring from Wikipedia (even though I enjoyed it very much) was because I was constantly being Wikihounded by Antidiskriminator. Now that I see that I'm not the only one being Wikihounded, it is clear to me that a topic ban (maybe for three months which he might later be reconsidered) is the best means to rectify this situation, that is, of course, if the administrator is willing to consider it as such.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: It is interesting that Athenean is taking part in this since he rarely ever participated in the topics which Antidiskriminator is being reported for. If I may take a moment here to describe something which I came across when responding to one of Antidiskriminator's messages to me: this diff which leads to this looks like Athenean trying to recruit Antidiskriminator for his witch-hunt of Albanian sock-puppet accounts (many of which have been proven to be false). To me, it seems obvious why Athenean is defending Antidiskrimator here (who most often sparred with Albanian editors at the time), despite rarely participating in the discussions which Antidiskriminator participated at the time. I won't state it explicitly because I believe it is self-evident.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean says that I am a Wikihounder. I will fully disclose myself as I feel it is necessary: I saved these links from a long time ago in anticipation that I would file a report, but I never got around to it. If I was a true Wikihounder, I would not even include any of these and only include recent diffs. He also says I assume bad faith. I have tried to be as fair as possible (eg. I mentioned that he later apologized) and obviously, this is not entirely possible as I am a human being. (It seems like he is annoyed that I called him out, but I feel like it is necessary to show that he has a horse in this race.)--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree fully with the comments of Director and endorse them. I have observed the same exact thing.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikoua's "evidence" that there was a disagreement is so vaguely constructed that anybody could spin it. The topic of disagreement is also so minor that it would be hard to gain any sort of knowledge from it. Alexikoua had no significant stake in the article so he of course conceded. If he did have a stake (ie. if he was a significant editor with plenty of sources), he would be facing a mine of WP:Battle and would face the same annoyance most other editors are finding here. Furthermore, Alexikoua and Antidiskriminator had never (or rarely) disagreed with each other so he therefore faced no hostility.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Nouniquenames[edit]

To the best of my knowledge, I've had no prior interaction with the individuals involved here. Anti could use some polishing, certainly, but (to pick a [165] complaint] above at random) unsourced information is not to stay, and without a deadline, it might stay indefinitely. I can understand the logic, at least, and it certainly wasn't common sense. I didn't see the accused battleground either. Producer seems to show that Anti disagreed about an article's assessment, which is, at best, a content dispute. It seems odd that a RM is considered disruptive, especially given the article's title at the time.

I won't take the space here to go through every point, (in part because I haven't the time,) but if those are a representative sample, I see nothing warranting the requested action, nor necessarily meeting the threshold of hounding. --Nouniquenames 04:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I am patently against the proposal of a topic ban for this individual unless it affects others involved as well. --Nouniquenames 15:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Nouniquenames, on what basis are you suggesting that course of action? I also note that your "representative sample" (as you put it) is unrepresentative of Antidiskriminator's pattern of tendentious behaviour, refusal to accept consensus and hounding that I (and others) have reported here. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concern as to my sample. I simply picked something at random and demonstrated that, in my opinion, the accusation was not supported here. I further looked at some of the battleground complaint and did not find enough evidence in what I checked to agree that such was a valid complaint against the individual. Based solely on those two points, and with care to point out that it was based on a part of the complaint presented, I put forth a theory that the entire request may not in fact be actionable.
Unfortunately, there appears now the possibility of action taken against this user based on this complaint. I would say that there are more involved than is obvious at first glance. Where I interacted in the playground you shared, neither of you was necessarily in the right. You both fought for a specific outcome, and yours was not necessarily to the good of the encyclopedia. (His may not have been either, but that does not concern my point here.) You brought him here and now it looks like he may be punished. It's life and all, but it's unfortunate. If that was what I saw in only a small area, how deep does the rabbit hole go? I've not the time to find out, but you leave my suspicions unsettled. There may be much I am missing, and I may be completely wrong as to the need for action based on the complaint. I still stand by my statement that other(s) here are equally in the wrong and should share in the bountiful harvest of negative consequences should there be such a harvest.

::As a final note, Peacemaker, I would respectfully request that you consider changing your username, as it seems it does not appropriately describe your activity here. --Nouniquenames 07:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty nasty WP:PERSONAL ATTACK there, Nouniquenames. And entirely unprovoked. Respectfully.
I won't argue here, but I will say that this dispute has been raging since literally years before you joined us here on this project, and that you may be lacking quite a bit of perspective, both on this issue and Balkans topics in general. The fact that you started the current RM on the talkpage "in good faith" [166] (as opposed to bad faith?) does not make it any less of a disruptive breach of moving practice, having been posted just a couple weeks since the last RM for basically the same title. Respectfully, that pretty much makes you solely responsible for a possible move block of that article. Kudos -- Director (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I resent the personal attack, I do not deserve it, and ask that you withdraw it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for withdrawing the personal attack, although the edit summary does you no credit. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by DIREKTOR[edit]

I was largely on the margins of Antidiskriminator's more recent disruptive activities, however in my experience, the user displays a very obvious pattern of POV-pushing and WP:TE. As PRODUCER pointed out above, Antidiskriminator has a daily hobby of creating WP:BATTLEGROUNDS in the form of sixteen sections or so, posted one after the other, where he conducts simultaneous POV-pushing on several topic and several talkpages at once. All singularly according to the Serbian-nationalist point of view. He has WP:WIKIHOUNDED his perceived "anti-Serbian opponents" to several articles, where he continues to simply "oppose" without regard to sources and user consensus.

The user does not edit articles, but merely argues to no end. Consequently, he also never presents specific suggestions, which could allow for a more focused debate that might actually conceivably end at some point. Its just vague, pointless quibbling day after day.

He usually has no sources, or has cherry-picked sources, or his sources are obviously biased to the point of comedy, etc.. Typically, he will post one of his myriad "complaint sections" on a talkpage, demanding some undefined change or other. Even when people arrive and basically say "go ahead, lets see what you have in mind (why aren't you editing?)" - he will actually continue to "debate" even though his edits essentially aren't opposed (cf the eight sections he started just on Talk:Chetniks, particularly this thread). Having no real support in sources, the user will typically attempt to abuse WP:DR, posting a succession of RfCs and 3Os and what not - basically trying to convince others so that he might still push unsourced nonsense into the text.

Generally speaking, the user's conduct is annoying to no end. Productive users who do actual research (like Peacemaker) are forced to deal with his brand of Balkans-nationalist WP:TE and endless disruption day in day out, farcical RfC after farcical RfC - instead of contributing to the project. He never gives up, regardless of how unsupported his position is. When policy is pointed to him, he calls it a "personal attack", basically ignores it, and just continues on - e.g. his ignoring this report as well. For months now the user has been posting one section after another on Talk:Pavle Đurišić, again and again and again, "complaint" after "complaint" in endless succession, one more biased and baseless than the next. Frankly, if the user is not sanctioned now for this wide-scale disruption - I can easily see this sort of nonsense continuing on indefinitely. -- Director (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. This report is already kind of ridiculously long, and everybody's posting everywhere, but I feel I have to point something out. The issue here is not primarily the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article, nor the irregular RM posted there by Nouniquenames. If that were the case, Nouniquenames would be the subject here. The point of all this is Antidiskriminator's conduct over a wide range of articles, primarily Pavle Đurišić in fact. I find Antidiskriminator's most recent post up there very interesting:

"I also support a measure proposed by EdJohnston. This move dispute has indeed generated tens of thousands of words for many years and still continues to generate repetitious talk discussions. Forbidding the initiation of further move requests seems necessary for now."

Well, I also support EdJohnston's proposed measure. Primarily its first paragraph. An RM restriction for the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article might be helpful, but then again it might not. The problem on that article isn't the over-long discussion on the title itself - its the users who perpetuate it as part of a pattern of nationalist POV-pushing and WP:TE.
In my personal opinion, there is a strong likelihood that users Antidiskriminator and WhiteWriter were, in fact, recruited (or "alerted") to that article by User:PANONIAN after his topic ban. -- Director (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Nick-D[edit]

On 19 September Antidiskriminator reposted sections of some of my comments at WP:RSN at Talk:Pavle Đurišić in such a way that they appeared to suggest that I supported their position, when in fact I did not. This was shortly before they were warned of the Eastern European editing restrictions, and when I confronted him or her about on 24 September they apologised. As far as I was concerned the matter was concluded, with no harm done other than further hardening my aversion to offering an opinion on this kind of dispute. However, I'm surprised to see that this fraudulent post attributed to me is still on the article's talk page (I actually thought it had been removed). Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fut.Perf.[edit]

From my own experience with Antidiskriminator on some Kosovo-related pages, and from observing him from a distance on a number of other "ethnic" troublespots (mostly Serbian-Albanian), I share the view that A. is a textbook case of a tendentious editor and needs to be restricted. It's maybe not so much any one particular set of offensive edits I'd point to, but just the overall picture of the "travelling circus": an endless succcession of tedious, unproductive squabbling, always related to the same predictable agenda issues. For concrete examples, I find Direktor's links to the Pavle Ðurišić talkpage instructive. Talk:Pavle Đurišić#Iron cross controversy is a particular illustrative section, showing an infuriating obtuseness in repeatedly failing to substantiate an alleged NPOV concern when asked to do so. After making an unsourced claim, Antidiskriminator spent three posts over ten days squabbling over the term "original research", until finally beginning to address the obvious issue that he hadn't provided sources to back up his claim; he never proceeded to explaining what point those (foreign-language) sources were actually making. The section a bit further down, related to the same issue (Talk:Pavle Đurišić#Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War) is equally illustrative. Can't act as an uninvolved admin on this one, but would certainly recommend sanctions of some sort. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Antidiskriminator did provide sources with quotes and their translation at the end of the iron cross thread. These remained unreplied it seems. I agree that his initial approach was unproductive. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. He did that only after seeing Fut. Perf's comment. [167] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; I should have checked the chronology more carefully. There's indeed a six-week gap between Antidiskriminator's last post there (Oct 13) and Peacemaker67's last post above it (Sep 28). Tijfo098 (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Tijfo098[edit]

Looking at the threads indicated by FPaS I think Peacemaker67 deserves and equal restriction. He repeatedly brushed off several RS/N discussions that brought in question (w/academic reviews) the source Peacemaker67 was relying upon (Cohen). That such a source is used in a FA only shows how pathetic Wikipedia really is. If one side can use yellow journalism in articles then so can the other. And don't say it was published by an academic publisher. It's an obscure university press publishing someone with no degree in history (and who found real success in Croatia). See the recently closed thread we had on User:JCAla, who was heavily relying on a similar book for a comparison. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be correct to say Antidiskriminator was wrong in his demands and "complaints" every single time: that would be quite an achievement. When someone posts dozens upon dozens of threads pushing in the same nationalist-POV direction, one or two are bound to have some kind of real support. I myself agreed that he might have a point several times, including the Cohen issue. But equally as such cases are drops in a sea of WP:TE are Peacemaker's possible errors of the above sort only drops in the sea of excellent, diligent, and thoroughly-researched contribution on a very difficult and obscure topic. Whereas antid is there merely to squabble and complain, continuously and without end, Peacemaker is the guy who's hard work and extensive contribs he's criticizing.
When someone harasses and hounds you all over the project, impeding your efforts with incessant, pointless, malicious bickering, it's hard to view the 27th complaint in good faith. I've often remarked on the tendency to simply "block everybody" or treat everyone as equally "guilty", but to treat these two users in such a way might be a new low in that regard. Their behavior and value to the project are not even comparable. That's my take anyway. -- Director (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the problem here is Wikipedia's inherently flawed system of "review". Basically Antidiskriminator was raising talk page points about perceived flaws in the article, while Peacemaker67 was complaining (sometimes using colorful phrases like "Blind Freddy" as in this thread) that Antidiskriminator is not editing the article. Outside of Wikipedia, a reviewer will not edit your paper. And in the few occasions that outside opinion was solicited (as in that thread I linked), both Antidiskriminator and Peacemaker67 were found to advance statements not supported by the sources cited (cf. WP:3O provided by User:Gigs there). Perhaps in the overall picture one is more at fault than the other, but in this article, I don't see why one should be sanctioned and the other not. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is academic. This is not outside WP, this IS WP and policies and norms of WP apply. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a less academic point. Read Talk:Ante_Pavelić#Unbeliveable_and_Laughable. There Peacemaker67 supports the inclusion of a source which says that "There was not even the slightest indication of antisemitism in the Ustaša ". I fully support a topic ban on him at this point. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of the regulars in this area: the bio that DIREKTOR + PRODUCER produced for Jozo Tomasevich was laughable, by the way. Stanford University in San Francisco, eh? [168] Nobody caught that for 6 months. Gives you pause about Wikipedia's readers. Oh, and he didn't actually teach at Stanford. But according to Peacemaker67 he called Ante Pavelic with the appellation "Dr." Hmm.... Tijfo098 (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now just wait a second. Firstly, I can't imagine what that has to do with anything. Secondly, if you're looking for random irregularities in the "Balkalns Articles" I suggest you set aside a few months for the search alone. Thirdly, I can't remember anymore but I'm reasonably certain people didn't actually make things up there: at best those are good faith errors, but also, here's a link from stanford.edu describing Tomasevich as "Stanford's professor" [169]. (If you think that the location of Stanford is general knowledge over here half-way across the world - think again :). We're more acquainted with places like the peaceful university town of Sorbonne..)
Finally, as I believe this is a free encyclopedia, I don't think anyone could possibly be topic banned for advocating the reliability of a scholarly source with some considerable peer review support, not without an action appeal anyway. I recommend Tijfo, that you view antid's behavior on the whole, rather than just this Cohen business, which seems to have struck a cord? The matter was discussed at WP:RSN, you don't propose to sanction everyone who didn't oppose Cohen's inclusion? (btw, I do agree that he probably isn't RS, now that I've had time to refresh my memory, but being wrong isn't something you sanction people for - as opposed to a pattern of nationalist POV-pushing and TE). That's it from me, I'm off to the islands and will need to declare a wikibreak :)
P.s. That Cohen quote is very much out of context. He is there referring to the early years of the Ustaše, when they were under Mussolini's wing. At that time Mussolini didn't express much anti-semitic sentiment either. And Cohen is Jewish after all, kind of hard to imagine him excusing anti-semitisim. -- Director (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With respect Tijfo098, can we try to keep this on topic and in context? You have so far raised out-of-context content issues on Ante Pavelic and seriously misrepresented the discussions at that. You have also seriously misrepresented and exaggerated discussions on RSN and at Pavle Djurisic about Cohen. My understanding of this place on WP is that you need to try to focus your discussion on the behaviour of Antidiskriminator that is the subject of the report, not obscure matters with off-topic discussions of my work on Ante Pavelic, where Antidiskriminator has yet to appear. If you think that my conduct on Ante Pavelic warrants a report, please go ahead, but this thread is clearly not the place. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to set the record straight the quote that Tijfo098 is mocking and even advocating topic-banning Peacemaker over is actually from Ivo Goldstein and a part of a work from the Jewish Studies at the Central European University. This is what's really "laughable" here. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admins should note the WP:BATTLE conduct of the DIREKTOR - PRODUCER - Peacemaker troika, who repeatedly bring issues unrelated to article improvement to Talk:Jozo Tomasevich. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I say you come here with unclean hands. You brought issues unrelated to this AE report to this forum, which was completely inappropriate. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very related. That BATTLE and CIRCUS conduct is the main reason for this report in the first hand. Same way of distracting introduction of unrelated material to Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia put us in problem. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WW, you are wrong. Tijfo098 unfairly mocked my actions on the Ante Pavelic article, and as was shown, his misrepresentation of my actions there (per PRODUCER's comment above) was obvious. That is what I mean by unclean hands. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine why, but Tijfo really was laying down some unfounded (and completely unrelated) criticism here (as has been shown). In a pretty aggressive manner. I mean you've got to say something or you look stupid and your contributions look worthless for no reason. -- Director (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Alexikoua[edit]

I really don't see anything remotely actionable according to this limited ammount of evidence provided against Antidiskriminator. In fact Antidiskriminator is one of the few editors that strictly follows the guidelines, especially about Balkan related topics. Although in the past I had some minor content disputes with him, I was surprised with the way he approaches the various issues and welcomes any third part opinion.

If one Balkan editor should receive some kind of restriction that's off course not him.Alexikoua (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example here [[170]] I was firmly against the creation of Independent Albania article by Antit., nevertheless he was kind enough to answer this [[171]]. Although I was still against the creation of this article Antint. is one of the few editors that stays calm and avoids to make things hot.Alexikoua (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by PANONIAN[edit]
intervention in breach of existing topic ban
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I will try to avoid to speak about things related to my topic ban, but last statement of EdJohnston really triggered my intervention. It is unbelievable that administrators are imposing topic bans related to Serbia only for Serbian users, while Croatian users (DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67) are allowed to write about Serbia what ever they want. Due to history of bad relations between Serbs and Croats, it is unbelievable that one can think that Croatian users are correct and NPOV when they write about Serbia and that all Serbian users who oppose them are wrong. To me this looks like admin abuse and evidence that admins favor Croatian side. DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67 are Croatian users who constantly disputing with many Serbian users about Serbia-related topics and admins always banned only Serbian users with no even considering any sanctions against Croatian users and even my request for sockpuppet investigation was declined because admin was thinking that two users live in "different corners of the globe": [172]. Sockpuppet or not, Peacemaker67 100% behave like Croat and he obviously lie that he is from Australia, so the question is: why someone would lie about his country of origin instead to try to make abuse in Wikipedia with the help of this lie? It is unbelievable that admins here are fully biased and they favor Croatian users against Serbian ones. It is either example of admin abuse either of admin incompetence. Oh, and I do expect some sanctions against me after my post, but I do not care anyway. I lowered down my involvement in English Wikipedia to a minimum, even for topics from which I was not baned and I now work in Serbian Wikipedia where climate for work is much better and where instigators like DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67 are blocked for good very soon after they appear. statement of EdJohnston that the "move dispute has continued to generate tens of thousands of words" since I was baned few months ago is a clear evidence who was and still is real instigator there, but one should have eyes to see it. PANONIAN 05:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just to say that I also asked User:Jimbo Wales for opinion about this problem: [173]. So, have a nice day...all of you. PANONIAN 05:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well hello, PANONIAN. Strange to see you here. I know I will have to say this again and again and again, but I am not Croatian and have no Croatian forebears. As far as the former Yugoslavia is concerned, I am balanced and stick to the reliable sources. I'm proud of being an Australian of essentially British/German ancestry, and consider your assumptions and renewed unjustified sockpuppet accusation is an insulting personal attack which I will be reporting. You are saying I am a Croat because you believe only a Croat would edit Balkan articles I do in the way I do, despite the fact that I am meticulous about using reliable sources. Your assertion is patent nonsense as my edit history shows. Interesting that you mention Serbian Wikipedia where Antidiskriminator is himself indefinitely banned. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, mister, you are Croat and if admins check your IP they will know that too. And yes: if admins impose sanctions against me for "personal attack against you" without proving that my statement about your country of origin is wrong then that will be admin abuse as well. PANONIAN 05:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just.. wow. :) Its nice to hear from PANONIAN from time to time, just to illustrate what it is people are forced to deal with over on these articles. A Croatian conspiracy against the Serbian nation? "Serbian articles for Serbian users"? -- Director (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Lothar von Richthofen[edit]

PANONIAN has crossed a bright line in reviving his unsubstantiated WP:BATTLEGROUND hysteria that Peacemaker is Croatian—a significant part of what earned him his sanctions in the first place. The declining admin in the SPI based his decision on the glaringly obvious editing-time analysis, while PANONIAN based (and continues to base) his suspicions on nationalist paranoia. "100% behave like Croat"—really? Members of one specific nationality exhibit a consistent behaviour pattern that you have all figured out? He's asking to be given the boot now. That admins consistently "side" with one side is indicative not of pro-Croat sympathies, as he alleges, but rather of the disruption patently obvious from the other side. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning User:Antidiskriminator[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Admins should look at two matters: (a) Chetnik disputes, (b) article name disputes regarding Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. I'm more familiar with the second, so let me start by noting the obvious parallel between this case and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive114#PANONIAN from last April. That request led to an indefinite topic ban for PANONIAN, mostly for refusing to accept consensus on talk pages. The scope of the ban was "all articles and discussions pertaining to Serbian history that took place more than 20 years ago". I do see similarity between PANONIAN's posts and those of Antidiskriminator, and in many cases it's on the same topic, this military district that for some people is very hard to name. I am struck by the endlessly repeated move requests, with no good rationale for why there was a problem with the previous request except for coming up with the wrong answer. I hope other admins have time to check out Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia as well as the three most recent talk archives, the ones numbered 7, 8 and 9. If other reviewers agree that the PANONIAN case is a good parallel we might consider the same remedy, a topic ban that keeps Antidiskiminator from working on Serbian history that is more than 20 years ago.

    This move dispute has continued to generate tens of thousands of words since it was at AE last May, with many of the talk discussions being very repetitious. This pattern is actually reminiscent of some Arbcom cases involving islands in the Far East. Acting under discretionary sanctions last January, an administrator decided to ban the initiation of any new move requests regarding the Senkaku Islands for one year. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't be adverse to that. Sometimes it's better to be wrong on a content matter so everyone can get around to writing about issues that are actually important. NW (Talk) 20:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's really put a lid on things at the Senkaku Islands page (the article is still locked down, but the talkpage is now actually being used for article improvement), so that seems like a reasonable way to go. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reflected on the evidence a bit more.
  • Antidiskriminator has created some content and is willing to gather sources. The downside of his thoroughness is that sometimes he will dig in and fight a pitched battle over many months by digging deeper and deeper for anything that might justify his position. This happened at Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia and at Talk:Pavle Đurišić. Unfortunately some editors who have interests in the area of Serbia seem to become attached to articles about the Chetnik leaders who were active during World War II. They get involved in the question of whether these leaders chose to collaborate with the Axis powers as opposed to being sincerely devoted to the welfare of their own people. There are sometimes no good answers on questions about collaboration, and an endless dispute may result. We expect editors to have sufficient neutrality to get themselves out of this hole. When you are persistent beyond a certain point, it becomes an unwillingness to accept consensus.
-Antidiskrminator showed extreme persistence in the matter of Durisic supposedly receiving the award of an Iron Cross. Then he tried to have the A-class article status taken away (it was already a Featured Article).
-It is understandable that other editors would grow weary with Antidiskriminator's persistence in the section at Talk:Pavle Đurišić#Iron Cross vs Karađorđe's star. The sections below it on that page also appear to show extreme stubbornness and an unwillingness to accept consensus.
  • In my analysis I noticed that Antidiskriminator has created quite a number of DYKs and has made three Good Articles which appear reasonably neutral.
  • The proposed action is:
-There will be a one-year hiatus on any new move proposals involving the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. This applies to all editors.
-Antidiskriminator is banned from editing Pavle Đurišić or its talk page. The ban might be widened in the future if he engages in further tendentious editing on the topic of the Chetniks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kennvido[edit]

Kennvido has been warned, as required by Arbitration Committee policy. Further disruption may result in a topic ban or other sanction, but requests for such action should be filed in a new section. NW (Talk) 05:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Kennvido[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Prioryman (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Kennvido (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Standard discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. Extensive edit-warring over climate change on Hurricane Sandy
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. Warned on 01:09, 3 November 2012 by Inks.LWC (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have no involvement in this issue myself, but it is especially problematic because of what has come out through media coverage here and in various other outlets. To summarise, it is clear that Kennvido is systematically attempting to keep any mention of climate change out of Hurricane Sandy, no matter how reliably sourced, because of his personal views: "I don't believe that climate change bullcrap". This has caused and is causing ongoing bad publicity for Wikipedia. It's a textbook example of disruptive editing resulting from the pushing of a personal POV. I strongly recommend an indefinite topic ban for Kennvido on any matter concerning climate change, as he is clearly unwilling or unable to follow WP:NPOV in that topic area. The editor is currently under a 24 hour block for the edit-warring and will not be able to respond until 14:00 GMT, 5 November 2012. Prioryman (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KillerChihuahua, it is quoted in this PopSci article in which Kennvido has been telling the reporter (off-wiki) why he has been keeping climate change-related material out of Hurricane Sandy. He has been systematically removing CC-related content from articles about the hurricane with edit summaries expressing disbelief in expert opinions: "Not proven; "Global warming in (sic) not fact. Please discuss on the Global Warming page". As stated on and off-wiki, he clearly believes that CC is "bullcrap" and "not fact" and is edit-warring to keep anything CC-related out of at least 2 articles concerning the hurricane, for which he appears to have been blocked earlier today. Prioryman (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
  1. 23:49, 4 November 2012‎

Discussion concerning Kennvido[edit]

Statement by Kennvido[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Kennvido[edit]

(Never done this before... box above does not seem to give relevant instructions to 3rd party commenters like myself)

Comment by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs)

Support; However if I am correct that Kennvido (talk · contribs) has only been with us in a real way for three weeks or so then in light of all the good work he did on apolitical subjects I believe it would suffice to make it a three-month topic ban on anything related to global warming / climate change. The three month clock is intended to get us past a potential congressional hearing in the lame duck session of congress which was the subject of some of his recent edits.

Additonal evidence of Battleground and uncivil attitude;

  • Kennvido (talk · contribs) has threatened to bully; When his campaign to delete the global warming treatment at Hurricane Sandy was not working Kennvido (talk · contribs)opted for Plan B by implied threats of uncivil behavior if we did not agree to let him quarantine the section out of sight to most readers on the talk page.
10:28, 3 November 2012 "IF there is to be a civil discussion regarding whether or not GW should be on the page or somewhere else, it should NOT be ON the page until a final decision is made."
I warned him at 11:32, 3 November 2012 when I wrote "Editor(s) who do not disagree in a WP:CIVIL manner usually incur sanctions."
09:59, 4 November 2012 "... I just don't want a beautiful piece of work like the Sandy article to be bogged down with any kind of political stuff. That's why I didn't want global warning [sic] in it...."

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I learned something here too. Thanks for your attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the off-wiki attacks against this user and canvasing in favor of a rather political viewpoint lacking peer-reviewed scince to back it up, + [174], I am surprised that Kennvido is the subject of an inquisition. Shouldn't we be investigating violations of those policies instead? μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fascinating Popular Science article, but I have no idea what you are talking about. NW (Talk) 05:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Kennvido[edit]

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

Prioryman, do you have a diff of his quoted statement? "I don't believe..." thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 00:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • We need a formal CC warning first. T. Canens (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've left one for him. [175] Clearly merited, given the edit warring. I think that's about all we can do here for now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ George Hills (1974). Rock of contention: a history of Gibraltar. Hale. p. 216. Retrieved 7 April 2011.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive126&oldid=1079523140"