Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Archive 3

172
is this acceptable? If not, can something be done? Sam [Spade] 07:05, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * As 172 isn't on this page, why is this comment here? Ambi 07:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I thought this was the right place. I take it you disagree? any advice? Sam [Spade] 07:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't that go as evidence in the relevant case? This page, methinks, is just for ongoing policing necessary as a result of past arbcom decisions. Ambi 07:47, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Okey-Doke. Sam [Spade] 18:29, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * VeryVerily has violated injunction #3 at Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision. It says "Enacted 3) Shorne and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with the Cold War or communism whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorized to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this."  Yet he not only editted, but just reverted changes that me and Ce garcon had worked on  pertaining to the very Cold War Gwangju massacre (with the South Korean dictatorship claimed had been instigated by North Korea and so on).  It appears this is breaking the temporary order but the arbs would know best. Ruy Lopez 11:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * VeryVerily has violated the injunction below (#2) by reverting Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision three times in twenty-four hours (actually, only one hour). Please impose the twenty-four-hour ban that the injunction specifies. Shorne 10:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It's a project talk page, not an article, and it's a stretch to say I reverted it more than once. Very Verily 10:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would someone be able to give this page a bit of a format? It's quite hard to read and there's some outdated decisions there. Ambi 02:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Out of date decisions
The item "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister 2" appears to be redundant since Irismeister is blocked for one year. I suggest an arbitrator remove it. Also, should this talk page be archived or cleaned up? JesseW 07:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Enforcement request re: supporters of Lyndon LaRouche
I am writing to request enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decisions that (1) "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed . . . not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche; and that (2) "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense." These decisions can be read here.

User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:Weed Harper have created an article on the Tavistock Institute. This is an organization in London, England that was founded in the 1920s to promote the interests of psychology and psychiatry. Over the years, it has offered psychotherapy to British people through its related Tavistock Clinic; has worked with the British government and European Union to develop mental health policies; and has financially supported mental-health related publications through its own publishing house. It is an institution that is highly regarded by psychologists and psychiatrists in the UK. It is arguably the most highly regarded mental health institute in the UK. Its website is here.

In 1974, Lyndon LaRouche published an article accusing the Tavistock of being involved in mind control. That article can be found here (warning: slow download). Since then, the LaRouche view of the Tavistock has developed in countless articles and speeches and is therefore hard to summarize. However, he appears to believe that the Tavistock is involved in mind control in order to exert influence over the British people and, I believe, the American people. The Tavistock, LaRouche maintains, has worked with successive British and American governments to achieve this, and in particularly with the British Army and intelligence services. An example of Tavistock success is the Beatles pop group, he says. They were fashioned by Tavistock-related people and controlled by intelligence agencies. I believe the allegation is that Beatles songs had certain key ideas deliberately inserted into them that governments wanted young people to believe.

In an article I recently created called Death of Jeremiah Duggan, Herschelkrustofsy and Weed Harper tried to insert some of LaRouche's ideas about the Tavistock, claiming it was relevant. That article is not the subject of this request, as we have settled that dispute as a result of compromise. However, I have now discovered that, in addition to trying to insert these views on the Tavistock into Jeremiah Duggan, the same users have created a page on the Tavistock Institute. The page is in its infancy, but one sentence already mentions mind control and social engineering and "critics" of the Tavistock. I have asked that they provide non-LaRouche attribution for these claims. They have so far only provided the results of a Google search, which produces all the old LaRouche ideas, cited by people on conspiracy websites who are either associated with LaRouche or who believe his ideas.

I ask that the Arbitration Committee find, as a matter of fact, that the sentence in the article Tavistock Institute that mentions mind control and social engineering constitutes "original research" that originated with LaRouche and his movement, and that, by inserting it, users Herschelkrustofsy and Weed Harper are engaged in activity that might be perceived as promotion of Lyndon LaRouche, in contravention of the Committee's rulings. I also ask the Committee to find, as a matter of fact, that these users created the article on the Tavistock for no other reason than to promote the LaRouche ideas on the Tavistock, and that therefore they be asked to refrain from further editing of that article.

The Tavistock Institute is not the only article into which these users are inserting LaRouche-related material. However, I am limiting this request to the Tavistock Institute in the interests of clarity. Slim 23:51, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the article on Tavistock Institute bears little relationship to the activities of the Tavistock Insitute and seem to be mainly derived from LaRouche conceptions. Any user may remove such material, see Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision, "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." Should it be re-inserted or an edit war develop, "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense", see Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision. As of now, no one has removed LaRouche derived material from the article Tavistock Institute nor has anyone tried to re-insert it or engaged in an edit war. Fred Bauder 02:25, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * As of 11:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC), the offending material has been removed, and no edit war has yet developed. We shall see what the future holds. JesseW 11:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Response from Herschel
SlimVirgin has seized upon citations from non-LaRouche publications, and deleted citations from these publications, arguing that since they seem to have information similar to that in the LaRouche publications, they must be indirectly controlled by LaRouche. This is quite a conspiracy theory. Slim's novel interpretation of the ArbCom decision is that henceforth, only a POV contrary to that of LaRouche is admissable. Incidentally, a Google search for articles linking Tavistock to brainwashing or mind control, excluding any reference to LaRouche or EIR, gives you roughly 34,000 entries. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Herschel, enough of this nonsense. I'm asking you to provide trusted third-party attribution for your edits, just as all other Wikipedia editors are frequently asked to do. You neglect to mention that I searched for a trusted third-party source for one of your claims yesterday, and then I inserted it (the Guardian article on Symons' BAP link) into the page you had edited. This shows that it is not true that only POV contrary to LaRouche is acceptable to me. You are misrepresenting my position.
 * The example you gave above illustrates your misuse of sources. It is true that a Google search for Tavistock+mind+control returns 33,900 entries, which is unsurprising as Tavistock psychologists study the mind. But a search for Tavistock+"mind control" returns only 1,630, most of which (and probably all of which) parrot the conspiracy theory that started with LaRouche. Slim


 * Just out of curiosity, how would you define a "trusted" source? --Herschelkrustofsky 17:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * One not published by LaRouchists, I'd imagine. A neutral source. Ambi 00:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Quote begins:

"Dubious sources

"For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews nor perform original research. Hence, anything we include should have been covered in the records, reportage, research, or studies of others. In many, if not most, cases there should be several corroborating sources available should someone wish to consult them. Sources should be unimpeachable relative to the claims made; outlandish claims beg strong sources.

"Sometimes a particular statement can only be verified at a place of dubious reliability, such as a weblog or a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, then just remove it - don't waste words on statements of limited interest and dubious truth. However, if you must keep it, then attribute it to the source in question. For example: According to the weblog Simply Relative, the average American has 3.8 cousins and 7.4 nephews and nieces.

This is similar to how we try to achieve a neutral point of view." Quote ends Slim 00:28, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily
Regarding the temporary injunction against him, VeryVerily has violated it, making communism related edits and I request he be banned for 24 hours. Ruy Lopez 07:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The injunction pertains to articles relating to communism. Just because this article states that the IMC does not function in communist countries does not make this an "article having to do with communism".  Sheesh, even Mirv wouldn't make this argument.  Would he? Very Verily  07:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You inserted the word communism. You're the one who MADE the article about communism. Ruy Lopez 07:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If anyone is interested, this conversation continued at Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Evidence, where an admin defended my interpretation. Very Verily 09:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Enough is enough
I request that the Arbitration Committee take action against users Herschelkrustofsky, C Colden and 64.30.208.48 in accordance with the committee's ruling that: "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement, or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material, shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense", see Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision

The three users are inserting claims into Lyndon LaRouche and Frederick Wills, without third-party attribution, which are designed to enhance the image of Lyndon LaRouche, and have reverted deletion of the claims three times in the last 16 hours.

Frederick Wills was a former Guyana government official who later in life became a member of the Schiller Institute, which is part of the LaRouche movement. In 1976, before there is evidence of his involvement with LaRouche, he apparently gave a speech to the U.N. advocating a third world debt moratorium. The above users are inserting that he gave this speech only after coming into contact with LaRouche, and that the speech was designed to promote LaRouche's proposal. They've provided no evidence to support this claim. Wills has died and therefore can't be asked what's true. This is an attempt to claim ownership on behalf of LaRouche of Wills' proposal on debt relief.

Regarding these users' edit histories, C Colden's and 64.30.208.48's  only contributions to Wikipedia, and almost all of Herschelkrustofsky's,  have been to promote LaRouche or his ideas. Slim 18:46, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * This convinces me. Ban them all for a week? Martin 23:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Seconded.
 * James F. (talk) 23:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Slim


 * Thirded. &rarr;Raul654 00:12, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * I concur. --mav 04:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also agree. Fred Bauder 11:33, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Upon complaint by user: C Colden and response by Jimbo it has been determined that Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision does not apply to her, if it applies to anyone. Fred Bauder 15:11, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * What has Jimbo said on this? To my knowledge, he's never vetoed an ArbCom decision before, so I find it strange that there's no mention of it anywhere on the wiki. Ambi 00:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It was on the mailing list: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-November/032435.html -- sannse (talk) 01:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It appears that the article, Frederick Wills, in question can be considered related to Lyndon LaRouche, thus the action taken in this matter was not appropriate. Fred Bauder 16:16, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Cantus
According to this, Cantus may not revert any article more than once in a 24-hour period. He just violated this rule on 20 different articles: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Chile, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Moldova, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Macedonia, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Switzerland, Turkey. Please apply a 24-hour block (or a 20-day block if it's supposed to be cumulative). Gzornenplatz 06:11, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Wik. Don't you have enough problems with Wikipedia yourself? —Cantus&hellip;  &#9742;   09:12, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * The penalty is up to a week; the multiple violations make it worth a week IMO. Cantus, when we say you're not supposed to do this stuff, we really mean you're not supposed to do this stuff - David Gerard 19:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cantus is evading the block with an obvious sockpuppet User:TimComm, which sprung into activity right after Cantus was blocked and is doing exactly the same reverts Cantus did. Gzornenplatz 04:11, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Now he has a second sockpuppet, User:Lazyfair. I think it is not enough just to block each sockpuppet, or he just creates new ones endlessly. Maybe increase Cantus' main block for each time he tries to evade it? Gzornenplatz 04:39, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Third sockpuppet, User:Ground0. Fourth sockpuppet, User:Tumti. No end in sight. Also engaging in page-move vandalism. How about adding a week to Cantus' block for each sockpuppet. This would make him stop if he ever wants to return to his Cantus account. Gzornenplatz 05:09, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Fifth sockpuppet, User:Xsysl. Gzornenplatz 06:27, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Cantus is now using the IP 80.237.206.93 (anonymizer.ccc.de). Gzornenplatz 05:05, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Alberuni ban
Isn't the Alberuni ban supposed to be for 13 months, 1 month for 3RR violations, and a further 12 months for "numerous personal attacks"? Jayjg |  (Talk)  04:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Question answered elsewhere, ArbCom can only ban for a maximum 12 months. Jayjg |  (Talk)  16:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz
User:Gzornenplatz was blocked today for violations of the arbitration decision (Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision), which says "2) If Gzornenplatz, Shorne, or VeryVerily should revert a page without discussing it on the relevant talk page, an administrator may ban him for up to 24 hours."

As can be seen in the table, Gzornenplatz has been repeatedly removing the country infobox template link, and replacing it with the full text. This has been done carefully at just over 24 hour increments (so as not to break that Arbitration ruling), but he has not discussed these edits on the relevant pages, nor abided by the consensus from many editors that his edits are not wanted, and this effort is creating an extra burden on other users. Rather than being constructive, he continues to push this particular agenda. As such, he is being blocked for one day for each offence listed here, for a total of 56 days. In reality, this only represents a portion of the edits, specifically only those articles he has reverted 2, 3, or 4 times. Many articles have been only reverted once by him in this way. Páll 06:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me just say that I completely agree with this. Gzornenplatz is playing the system by timing his edits outside of the 24 hour limit, yet still is reverting against consensus and without discussion.  The arbCom was specific when it says to discuss "on the relevant talk page", and if that means he has to discuss one article at a time, then that is what he should do.  He cannot just keep reverting, especially under the terms of Arbitration. -- Netoholic @ 06:52, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)


 * P.S. Gzornenplatz has tried evading the block at least once as 209.237.231.200.  -- Netoholic @ 07:06, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, Gzornenplatz is really a sockpuppet of Wik, which is subject to many arbcom rulings. Hence, Wik is violating arbcom rulings as User:Wik and the arbcom rulings as User: Gzornenplatz. This calls for a indefinite ban. —Adalis 07:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Do not unblock him. This has already been announce to other admins for further discussion, and I will consider reducing the block based on that discussion. Páll 07:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Blocks are very rarely applied consecutively, rather than concurrently. I urge you to reduce the 56-day block. It should be regarded as one large violation, not 56 small ones - David Gerard 12:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While I know nothing of the substance of this particular dispute, I feel it should be pointed out that Gzornenplatz "opponent" in this issue appears to be Cantus, who has used at least 5 sockpuppets and/or anonymous IPs to revert these pages as well. Battling an army of sockpuppets is, in my view, a mitigating circumstance. Jayjg |  (Talk)  16:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * But only if those sockpuppet accusations are real. While both Cantus and Gzornenplatz were revert warring, the origin and action of the "Cantus" sockpuppets can't be confirmed, since they were done via anonymous web proxies - a mechanism Gzornenplatz is well aware himself of how to use. -- Netoholic @ 17:34, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

CheeseDreams
moved from the main page by sannse (talk) 12:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC):

-Its the 30th of January, shouldn't that be removed?

end of moved text


 * The block was removed, but another is currently in place for edits to a Christianity related article, in violation of the ban in that area -- sannse (talk) 12:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arb clarification decision
Would the ArbCom please clarify on CheeseDreams' sockpuppets? I would assume the ban would be enforced on those articles as well. Also, clarification as to "Christianity"... does this mean all articles relating to, including articles relating to Jesus? -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This isn't the right page for this (although we don't have a page at the moment for clarifications - I suppose WP:RfAr is probably the best for now). But... all rulings apply to the person and not to the account.  So CheeseDreams is banned from the articles in question whatever account (or IP) she uses.  The decision states "all Christianity-related articles".  You might notice on the proposed discussion page that we considered a ban only on "Jesus-related" articles, but rejected that in favour of a wider ban.  That was my reasoning anyway, and that of Delirium who stated "prefer [Christianity-related], which is a superset".  From what I recall of the discussion at the time, and from comments made since, this was also the reasoning of other arbitrators.  As far as I am concerned, all Jesus-related articles are included in the ruling.  If this needs clarifying more formally - then I suggest a request at WP:RfAr -- sannse (talk) 12:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rienzo, NahChyps, Lady Tara, Baffinisland, Nasse
moved from the main page by sannse (talk) 14:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Done by Snowspinner, who forgot to sign off here (shame!). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:21, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
 * Dammit. I'll get right on requesting arbitration against myself for my failings. Snowspinner 03:29, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Recuse; have had dealings with this individual in the past which bias me against him. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:32, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Rienzo is currently editing via the IP 67.15.77.158 as of 30th January

end of moved text


 * If Rienzo is evading a block, the place to mention this is the Administrators' noticeboard. Although, as I suspect you may be doing the same, you don't really have the best of cases here -- sannse (talk) 14:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:JarlaxleArtemis
This notice has been expanded and moved to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. &mdash;Psychonaut 17:19, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Update?
I suggest (humbly) that an arbitrator update this page (I'd rather not touch it...too much probable trouble would result from that precedent, methinks). Xed, for example, should either be removed or else his ban timer updated. Rienzo should be removed unless the note someone left about restarting his ban timer is valid. I think I saw a few others. Thanks! Jwrosenzweig 17:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep, this needs a good sort out, and also a re-evaluation of its use. I think this should be a central place for all remedies that need admin action, including dates for expiry.  I intend to work on this shortly and give it a real overhaul -- sannse (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Presumably, this page is intended to be a central reference point for arbcomm decisions. In which case I point out an oddity: that the decisions for me, Cortonin and JonGwynne aren't listed. I don't know if others are missing too. William M. Connolley 21:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC).

William M. Connolley's parole - enforcement
(This debate originally appeared on an incorrect wikipage. It was my fault. Please accept my apologies.)

� (SEWilco 17:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)) I may have missed some and only looked at the recent 500. � (SEWilco 17:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC))
 * User William M. Connolley is violating the parole.
 * See e.g. the page on "Skeptical Environmentalist" Bjorn Lomborg where he reverted the page without explaining his reasons on the talk page, although he is specifically forbidden to do so. Together with MichaelSirks, we are looking for tools to enforce the parole. Could you please help us? Thanks, --Lumidek 15:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * At least one violation of the 1 rv in 24 hours restriction took place.
 * 10:24, 28 October 2005 (hist) (diff) Peat (Peat fires - Change pic to one also showing increase.  Leave text.)  (top)
 * 09:54, 28 October 2005 (hist) (diff) Peat (rv to WMC. Its perfectly clear from the graph that there was no such boost to explain)
 * A lack of Talk updates is also apparent in Special:Contributions&target=William+M.+Connolley.  Some are rvv, but being locked up may mean someone else has to save the grandmother next door from a fire.

This is the tedious old climate wars again with the same old suspects. SEW has stuffed this page with a pile of gross irrelevance.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=26542081 - this is explained perfectly in the edit comment rm new link - appears to be just a link to a scan of a paper; of questionable use and probably copyvio
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate&diff=prev&oldid=26462307 - don't need heinlein here; doubt he is originator anyway: rv to Andres

I can't be bothered to go through the full list - as SEW himself says (is he mad?) Some are rvv - SEW is just trouble making. If he has a serious complaint, he needs to winnow it down to real cases and remove the dross. William M. Connolley 19:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC).

Oops, missed some more dross: SEW supposed viol of 1RR: ''Peat fires - Change pic to one also showing increase. Leave text.) (top) '' - *its not a revert*. This is just malice/trolling. William M. Connolley 19:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC).

Comment by Rd232
Since this is about WMC's parole, let's remind ourselves of the key part of that text: "Due to a long history of reverting, often without giving adequate explanation for the reverts, William M. Connolley is hereby prohibited for six months from reverting any article relating to climate change more than once per 24 hour period (vandalism excepted). Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate."
 * which I interpret as 1. no more than 1 revert in 24 hrs, i.e. a return to previous page state; 2. this excludes responses to vandalism; 3. where there is a dispute about sourcing a Talk page explanation is required, unless 3a. adequate explanation can be fitted into an edit summary, and is provided. I interpret 3a as a reasonable extension 3. as it otherwise imposes needless burden on others - to visit Talk page to see every WMC edit summary, instead of seeing in watchlists. If this is way off base from what was intended or what others think, sorry; but I comment below on this basis.


 * 1. WMC came in and supported Orsetto (and Tsavage?) in dipute with MichaelSirks, over major revision of page; it seems difficult to interpret this as a breach of the citation/Talk page requirement.


 * Here WMC was in clear violation of his parole. It was a argument between me and Ozetto, which was also discussed on the talk pages. WMC didn't participate in this discusion, yet he reverted the text whitout explaination in the comment or on the talkpage. In his own words WMC can't be bothered with his parole.--MichaelSirks 19:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 3,4., - the initial edit from Mikkalai wasn't a revert (removed some material only); one revert from SEWilco, with adequate edit summary (not regarding a citation); one edit to change picture, not a revert

Picking some WMC contributions from SEWilco's lengthy list:
 * 5. is removal of 2 of 3 links over 2 edits a reversion?
 * 10. is a straightforward re-addition of an internal link, with explanation;
 * 20. was with edit summary and discussed on Talk by others who agreed
 * 25. - two edits that day, neither reverts, and discussed on Talk;
 * 30. not a revert (only restored deleted statement and fixed link after major addition)
 * 35. not a revert (and a removal of his section after my rewriting of which I didn't object to!);
 * 40. related to a dispute over citation, in which WMC didn't quite revert  but didn't explain properly either. It included WMC changing a link (in the intro) from [URL URL] to [URL], which SEWilco reverted with edit summary "rv WMC's destructive wiki edit", which someone else remarked was "inflammatory and uncalled for".
 * 45. a revert of vandalism
 * 50. not a revert and had clear edit summary
 * 55. reverted removal of link/citation on basis link was dead but citation still useful
 * 59. removal of vandalism.

Of which only this comes close:
 * [15] explained on Talk; ; WMC tried to justify second revert in 24h by reference to vandalism  which a dubious interpretation. But since WMC didn't revert the subequent readdition, it not's much to hang a man by. I would suggest that after four months of a six months parole a minor slip is grounds for gentle reminder, no more; Wikipedia is not a police state. If there are more serious/demonstrable violations in SEWilco's list, it's entirely his fault for padding it with irrelevancies and trivialities.

All in all this looks like renewed animosity on the part of a number of people, sparked by the recent return of a contributor ('return' as he made only 4 edits between 20 July and 14 October) involved or at least affected by the case. This is now four months into WMC's parole and in that time I haven't seen any disputes on this (not that I've been looking for them). So it looks a bit like a settling of old scores, given that SEWilco's trawl of WMC's edits (imagine how time-consuming that must have been!) reveals so little.

Finally, I have concerns about this remark on my talk, a reply to a request by WMC to check out this enforcement request and comment if appropriate: ''Hi. Let me mention that WMC has brutally violated the rules of Wikipedia, and if you follow his order, you will be a violator, too. --Lumidek 20:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)'' Which further supports my concern that this enforcement issue is being raised as a vendetta. Finally-finally, I've spent an hour+ seeing whether there was a basis for the accusations; time that could have been spent more productively. Let's get back to actually working on Wikipedia. Rd232 talk 22:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I find your "defense" of WMC bizarre. It's like someone who is accused of 50 murders and someone else proving that the killer is innocent because 20 of the victims were actually just children. There are well-defined rules here on Wikipedia and they have to be obeyed unless we want to support the tendencies that damage the Wikicommunity and its goals. --Lumidek 00:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking over, the diffs, it appears that Rd232 is correct in his assessment. I don't think WMC has done anything wrong. On the other hand, Lumidek's and SEWilco's actions have the appearances of a vendetta. Like Rd232, I received the same threats from Lumidek. His comments on this page are bizarre and, IMO, constitute personal attacks. Guettarda 02:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * So you think WMC has met the requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate (see #Relative value of references)." Where are those corresponding talk page comments?  And shouldn't one trust that an editor carrying on a vendetta is able to pursue one better than once in 4 months?  The issue here is whether WMC has followed the rules.  After 4 months, this is a "minor slip" which has the requirements and penalties defined.  (SEWilco 01:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC))

SEWilco comment on Rd232
I'd thought some of WMC's edits looked odd, but hadn't looked at the situation until this complaint popped up. Anybody monitoring? No parole officer? There are still a number of oddities; without reexamining the last 500 edits there are still 8 items listed below, from Rd232's list.
 * I had interpreted "(vandalism excepted)" as imposing the penalty upon vandalism by parolees, but it being an rvv exception fits the phrasing better.
 * "unless 3a. adequate explanation can be fitted into an edit summary, and is provided." is an exception which is not in the Remedy. You might not recall that Talk descriptions were required due to a history of problematical edit summaries.
 * I provided the link to WMC's Contributions because it is easy to see oddities there.

Some remaining items in Rd232's partial list:
 * 1. WMC came in and supported Orsetto (and Tsavage?)... I see no group rv exception in the ruling.  I didn't try to judge whether this was a group revert war because a war is not a requirement either.
 * 3,4.  - ...revert from SEWilco, with adequate edit summary... Actually, there was an unsigned Talk entry with a graph-reading explanation to counter the removed sourced statement.  Is trying to interpret a graph the required "reputable source"?
 * 5. is removal of 2 of 3 links over 2 edits a reversion? It is an rv, labeled rm, of the link created during the preceding 2 edits. Required Talk missing.
 * 10. is a straightforward re-addition of an internal link, with explanation; Required Talk missing.
 * 20. was with edit summary and discussed on Talk by others who agreed Required Talk missing.''' (nearest Talk edit over 11 hours later)
 * 40. ...WMC didn't quite revert... ... but didn't explain properly either. Comparison with WMC's previous version shows it was a revert with a destructive citation conversion added. Required Talk missing. (nearest Talk edit 5 hours later)  This conversion replaced
 * with only the less descriptive URL:
 * 
 * 50. not a revert and had clear edit summary Comparison with 3rd preceding version shows it was revert with two phrases also changed.  Required Talk missing.
 * 55. reverted removal of link/citation on basis link was dead but citation still useful A good and necessary edit which violates parole.  Required Talk missing.
 * 55. reverted removal of link/citation on basis link was dead but citation still useful A good and necessary edit which violates parole.  Required Talk missing.

� (SEWilco 05:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC))

comment MichaelSirks

 * Here WMC was in clear violation of his parole. It was a argument between me and Ozetto, which was also discussed on the talk pages. WMC didn't participate in this discusion, yet he reverted the text whitout explaination in the comment or on the talkpage. In his own words WMC can't be bothered with his parole. If you let WMC get away with this wikipedia will degenerate into a reverting encyclopedia. Where the one who can shout the longest wins. --MichaelSirks 19:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

SEWilco comment on WMC
- (SEWilco 05:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC))
 * Connolley points out the injunction link is to a temporary injunction. That is correct.
 * Connolley neglected to point out there is a revert parole elsewhere in the document.


 * Well, weirdly enough, I'm *not* required to sort out your complaints for you. If you're going to whinge, at least do it competently. Spamming a vast list of irrelevant edits is a waste of everyones time, including yours. William M. Connolley 17:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC).
 * I did indeed sort out someone else's complaint about your edits. I don't suppose you'll save everyone time by providing a list of your improper edits.  (SEWilco 05:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC))
 * Sure. Here it is: [ ]. William M. Connolley 09:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC).
 * Would you (WMC) try to defend your revert in the Lomborg article.--MichaelSirks 18:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Table of reversions
Contributions by WMC which are labeled as reversions for which no Talk edit was apparent. A few items are listed for relevant context. A Note "No Talk" indicates no associated Talk page edit was apparent: "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate (see #Relative value of references)." (SEWilco 05:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC))
 * Among other issues, SEWilco is not paying enough attention to the meaning of the subclause "where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". The parole terms again:
 * Due to a long history of reverting, often without giving adequate explanation for the reverts, William M. Connolley is hereby prohibited for six months from reverting any article relating to climate change more than once per 24 hour period (vandalism excepted). Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate (see ). ... Determining ... what is a 'reputable source' is left up to the discretion of the blocking administrator (who should follow the guidance at ).  Rd232 talk 15:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Meaning of this sentence seems to me to mean; That WMC must backup every revert on the talk page. There he must cite or ask for a reputable source. But he doesn't do anything of the kind he just reverts the text with comments like; "rv to orzetto" or "Rv to WMC, just like before". Explain to me what you think that it means. Who are the persons who made up the verdict surely they can tell us what they mean.--MichaelSirks 22:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree on the details of the meaning. But rather than nitpick what the authors might have meant, if you're serious about pursuing this, you could ask them - Requests for arbitration#Requests for Clarification. Rd232 talk 22:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

WMC ignores parole
"'… I discuss on the talk pages where this is useful, and use edit summaries where that suffices. Anything more would be unreasonably burdensome.… William M. Connolley 17:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC).'"

It is OK to ignore a ruling due to one finding it is "burdensome"? (SEWilco 17:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC))


 * The arbcomm, obviously, intends to be reasonable. Unlike you. William M. Connolley 18:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC).


 * The arbcomm already decided it is reasonable that explanations must be given, so administrators don't have to debate whether "(Rv POV gossip)" or "(rv edits by banned user JonGwynne, including mistaken "correction" of link)" (enforcement of decision upon other while ignoring own parole!) is sufficient. (SEWilco 19:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC))


 * Actually, what is expected is that he "adequately address the concerns raised by the other editors" . Guettarda 19:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * For the third time WMC try to defend your revert on the Lomborg article. You can't. Let me summerize it for you;
 * Here WMC was in clear violation of his parole. It was a argument between me and Ozetto, which was also discussed on the talk pages. WMC didn't participate in this discusion, yet he reverted the text whitout explaination in the comment or on the talkpage. In his own words WMC can't be bothered with his parole. If you let WMC get away with this wikipedia will degenerate into a reverting encyclopedia. Where the one who can shout the longest wins.
 * You(Guettarda) don't find it nescesary that WMC adresses the specific issues here raised. I find this unbelieveble. This won't go away.--MichaelSirks 20:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "(Rv POV gossip)" nor "re-rm gossip" (not in above table because "rv" not present) doesn't seem to have been particularly adequate. (SEWilco 20:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC))


 * 1) (cur) (last)  02:50, 7 July 2005 William M. Connolley (Re-rm gossip, and now POV-pushing too: there is no justification for that.)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 17:54, 6 July 2005 213.122.5.133 (bring position and action together)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 17:48, 6 July 2005 213.122.5.133 (and still more)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 13:18, 5 July 2005 William M. Connolley (re-rm gossip)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 17:14, 3 July 2005 213.122.111.221 (Another issue)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 13:47, 3 July 2005 William M. Connolley (re-rm gossip)
 * 7) (cur) (last) 16:21, 2 July 2005 81.131.132.154 (see talk for another possible addition)
 * 8) (cur) (last) 04:31, 2 July 2005 William M. Connolley (re-rm gossip)
 * 9) (cur) (last) 15:19, 1 July 2005 213.122.98.244 (Still informative and referenced)
 * 10) (cur) (last) 02:45, 1 July 2005 William M. Connolley (Re-rm gossip)
 * 11) (cur) (last) 18:10, 29 June 2005 213.122.217.150 (rv - not gossip but direct quotes from proper sources)
 * 12) (cur) (last) 11:13, 29 June 2005 William M. Connolley (Rv POV gossip)
 * 13) (cur) (last) 17:10, 28 June 2005 81.131.97.80 (rv - you seem to be trying to hide something)
 * 14) (cur) (last) 05:48, 28 June 2005 William M. Connolley (rv, as before)
 * 15) (cur) (last) 16:22, 25 June 2005 213.122.64.47 (Rv as per talk)
 * 16) (cur) (last) 15:40, 25 June 2005 William M. Connolley (Rv as per talk)


 * The issue was addressed adequately in the talk page. What's you point?  Guettarda 20:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Which part of must confuses you? Just on those two examples, on the day of the "(Rv POV gossip)" edit  he didn't address anything in Talk until 14 hours later; whether that Talk met your qualifications it still left the edit unexplained and slowed resolution of the discussion.  Just a few days after going on parole.  The "(rv edits by banned user JonGwynne, including mistaken "correction" of link)" edit  had no edits of the article's Talk page by WMC until nearly 2 days later.  (SEWilco 04:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC))


 * In the Lomborg article WMC didn't bother to adress anything in the talk page. You could have known that if you looked at them instead of taking WMC's word for it. The specific revert (cur) (last) 21:22, 23 October 2005 William M. Connolley (rv to Orzetto). No talkpage entries of WMC. If you want to defend him at least be specific. This won't go away.--MichaelSirks 21:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Climate change dispute/Admin enforcement requested
Arbitrators: I do not see information from Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute in Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested. Is something from the former supposed to be in the latter page? (SEWilco 04:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

Xed parole enforcement
According to Requests for arbitration/Xed, Xed is currently on standard personal attack parole for one year, until 9 March, 2006. For the record, I would like to document Xed's recent campaign against Jayjg and myself. Xed persists in attacking Jayjg on Talk:Norman Finkelstein, calls Jayjg a "propagandist" and a weasel, and claims that I've been "caught lying" on Divine Intervention (film). Diffs follow. --Viriditas | Talk 11:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Norman Finkelstein
 * 20:31, 3 November 2005 I would be happy discussing article content. But it seems you are not 
 * 20:45, 3 November 2005 Thanks for providing documentary evidence of Jayjg's shocking behaviour. I had not realised the situation had degenerated to such a degree.
 * Divine Intervention (film)
 * 19:20, 3 November 2005 remove weasel-like wording from propagandist
 * 09:10, 4 November 2005 rv weasel
 * 10:37, 4 November 2005 rv weasel tag-team
 * 11:31, 4 November 2005 you've been caught lying. you can't review all those pages in 3 minutes!
 * 12:05, 4 November 2005 Weasel tag-team in effect


 * Has he found the parole to be "unreasonably burdensome" so it does not apply? (SEWilco 17:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC))


 * Can you explain what you mean? Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"Only Arbitration Committee members can add new items to this page."
Obviously this should be updated to take account the role of clerks. Anyone have a view on whether this be done conservatively (i.e., that only duly appointed clerks may do so), or liberally (i.e. that anyone may do say, provided they're doing so directly on the basis of an actual arbcom decision, and doing so neutrally and accurately, etc)? I note that at least one case seems to have slipped through, even since the start of the clerking system. Alai 18:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't meant to complain or anything, but most of the cases (including that of KDRGibby) I've seen fall through the cracks in some way since clerking began are those closed by an arbitrator. (This is just anecdotal, and is not meant to be taken as strong proof that the arbs are losing it or something. :p) Johnleemk | Talk 18:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Agapetos Angel

 * User:203.213.77.138 has been blocked as being related to this decision, while not being listed as a party to it. Warning and blocking were simultaneous. Clyde did not follow the Arbcom decision by blocking this editor for one month, rather than up to one week []. While Clyde might be excused for not knowing the facts, user:FeloniousMonk is fully aware, being a party to the RfA, of the decision.  However, he unblocked, then reblocked for the same amount of time, posting notice on the Talk page of the article.  This is yet another example of admin abuse, that I tried to have addressed in the RfA, that still continues. agapetos_angel 12:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As I noted at WP:AE at the time,  is one of the enjoined parties precluded from editing Jonathan Sarfati and Answers in Genesis. He was specifically identified here: Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel/Workshop, and thus by his POV editing falls under "et al." After editing both articles tendentiously,, , , , though it's not required, 203.213.77.138 was warned and notified of the ruling on his talk page, and yet he chose to continue editing these articles, justifying the longer block. His block has since been reduced by Cyde to 1 week, but I predict it will be back to 1 month not long after his week is up, based on the refractory habits of this editor behind the various IPs. FeloniousMonk 16:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Since blocking is supposed to be preventive rather than punitive, a block of one month based on a prediction would be out of line. If a month is later necessary due to the actions of that editor, it is a different matter.  However, my complaint against enjoined administrators is still valid.  Involved in the disputes, FeloniousMonk has no business blocking editors with whom he is conflicting. agapetos_angel 18:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your frustration here is being caused by not understanding some central points. 1) 203.213.77.138's block for 1 month was not because it was "predicted" he would be a chronic offender (something his past history supports), but because he was warned and continued to edit the articles (as well as made a personal attack). 2) I'm not in a content conflict with 203.213.77.138, I was attempting to enforce the arbcomm ruling. 3) Admins enforcing arbcomm rulings are not subject to the same restrictions regarding blocking banned editors as those who are in conflicts over content. FeloniousMonk 20:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive?
AER is getting a bit huge in terms of number of sections. Shouldn't there be an archive? - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 08:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh most definitely. J- ſtan TalkContribs 17:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Summary
This page is huge, and frankly it seems unreasonable to expect administrators to keep all this in mind as they interact with users. My biggest concern is that the only admins likely to be familiar with the remedies in a specific area are the ones that are already most involved, which is undesirable. Maybe we could have a summary of a summary. It seems to me that there are three main groups: banned users; users under some restriction (e.g. civility, topic ban), and topic areas under some restriction (e.g. article probabtion). Three brief (alphabetical) lists with links would suffice. So long as the lists are maintained, we don't need to see the case status or expiration date. The shorter the summary, the more likely admins would be to refer to it. Bovlb (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha! I found General sanctions and Editing restrictions which cover most of what I wanted.  Maybe the page header should send people there.  Bovlb (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)